California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
8
Using the Watershed Assessment for Decision-Making
One of the most important uses of a
watershed assessment is to support
watershed-scale decisions that protect or
restore watershed function. This is probably
one of the most difficult as well. Watershed
assessments and watershed planning are
the cornerstone for effective human action
at the watershed-scale, but only if the
findings and proposed actions are
implemented and the response of the
watershed monitored (Naiman, 1992;
Reimold, 1998). This chapter expands on
chapter 2 and describes different ways that
a completed watershed assessment can be
used to support watershed-scale decisions.
Restoration planning, water quality
regulation, land-use planning, water
management, watershed planning,
floodplain management, and monitoring are
all activities where watershed assessment
can be useful.
Chapter Outline
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
Watershed Planning
Restoration Planning and Projects
Land-Use Planning
Public Lands Management
Water Management
Floodplain Management
Regulation
Voluntary Private Lands
Management
8.9
Monitoring Programs
8.10 Watershed Adaptive Management
8.11 References
___________________________________
8.1
June, 2005
Watershed Planning
Watershed plans are the logical follow-up to
watershed assessments. Plans take the
information developed during the
assessment and design a program of
solutions to address the fundamental needs
and problems identified in the assessment.
A watershed plan consists of a series of
proposed actions that seek to improve any
- 193 -
conditions regarded as detrimental or
degraded in the assessment. Information
from the assessment contributes directly to
the plan by providing the knowledge on
which to base the proposed actions. In a
recent study of watershed groups, the use
of watershed plans was one of the few
factors that had a high correlation with
potential positive environmental outcomes
(Huntington & Sommarstrom 2000).
In general, a watershed plan consists of an
overall vision or set of goals for the
watershed, a series of steps needed to
achieve those goals, and detailed
consideration of how to implement those
steps. The plan should also include
prioritization of the goals and actions,
optimization of the sequence of actions for
greatest efficiency and effectiveness, and
means of monitoring the implementation
and results of the actions. However,
“effective plans can range in size and
content from simple documents of only a
few pages to multi-volume comprehensive
reports” (Born & Genskow 2001).
Actions typically found in watershed plans
include:
 public awareness and education
programs
 agency coordination mechanisms
 proposals for changes in land use via
incentives, regulations, zoning, and
conservation easements
 aquatic and riparian habitat restoration
 proposals for changes in water,
vegetation, and waste management
 best management practices to minimize
soil loss and water-borne transport of
waste materials and pollutants
 structural changes in drainage systems,
storm water conveyances, bridges,
dams, and diversions.
Information contained in your watershed
assessment should be helpful for designing
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
each action. Each proposed action should
relate to at least one objective or goal of the
watershed assessment, and contain
information about:
 basis in assessment findings,
 alternatives,
 responsible parties, partners and
assistants,
 public education and involvement,
 time schedules,
 costs,
 opportunities for funding,
 resources needed,
 potential impediments,
 potential jurisdictional conflicts and
cooperation,
 steps for implementation, and
 measures of success.
‘Good’ planning processes lead to better
recommendations for action (Born &
Genskow 2001), so be careful about
jumping into developing a “Wish List” of
proposed projects and actions. It is
tempting, and sometimes watershed groups
need to have some relatively easy projects
under their belts first in order to garner
public interest to sustain a longer planning
process (see “Action” type of planning in the
table of concepts of schools of planning).
Your list of actions will likely exceed more
than you can possibly accomplish in a 2-5
year period, or your ability to find the
immediate funding to help implement. To
help set priorities for the proposed actions,
considering the following (Conservation
Technology Information Center, 1994 and
others):
 watershed assessment findings of
critical causes of problems









June, 2005
funds available
opportunities for partnerships
return on funds to be invested - “most
bang for the buck”
time and other non-financial resources
ability to get the action done
early successes motivate more action
some actions rely on other actions for
success
preventative actions versus remedial
ones
ability to measure progress or success
with performance indicators
8.1.1
Develop a Successful Plan
A useful assessment provides an evaluation
of how well a watershed is working and how
it got that way. It does not necessarily give a
direction, which requires decisions. Here we
are now, but where do we want to go with
these helpful new findings about our
watershed? Planning is a process that
enables you to determine where you want to
go, how and when you’re going to get there,
and who is going to do what.
First, however, you need to clearly define
why a plan is needed. People will not
participate in the planning process or accept
the final plan unless they understand the
need for the plan and the decisions to be
made (Saul & Faast 1993). An assessment
can usually make this explanation easier by
identifying what needs to be improved in the
watershed. The assumption (explicit or
implicit) is that people will want to follow
through with working on the findings of the
assessment through a plan and its
implementation. Do not always assume,
though, that a good assessment will
automatically lead to a publicly-supported
plan.
“A key question underlying all watershed planning is: What is an effective process to relate science,
policy, and public participation? Watershed planning demands integrative thinking and a coordinated
approach. Perhaps the greatest contemporary concern is to provide meaningful public involvement in
the process, because experience has shown that top-down planning can create a variety of
implementation barriers grounded in the lack of public involvement at key points in the planning
process.”
~ National Research Council (1999)
- 194 -
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
As emphasized in chapter 2, the process
your group uses with your watershed
community will be critical in developing the
understanding and support for your plan as
well as your assessment. Who makes the
decisions about what goes into the plan is
another key factor toward developing a
sound strategy. The assessment process
entails some decision-making, but the
planning process involves much more.
Decisions have to be made on the best
strategy, and priorities have to be set.
Opinions and values become more
involved, and trade-offs have to be made.
The primarily objective assessment process
becomes transformed into an essentially
subjective planning process. Science
informs those decisions through the
assessment, but choices still are made. Not
everyone can necessarily be satisfied,
though consensus should still be sought.
Planning must “be seen as part of a process
that strives to create a watershed
community” (National Research Council,
1999).
With a credible assessment and plan having
strong stakeholder support, successful
implementation should be able to follow –
pending funding, permitting, and other
needs, of course. If monitoring and other
evaluations later indicate that the plan
needs to be changed, then the planning
process should readily provide for adapting
the plan’s content and approach as needed.
8.1.2
Choose a Type of Planning
How to approach planning for watersheds
June, 2005
will necessarily involve the different
concepts or “schools of planning” that have
evolved in the U.S. Each concept carries its
own set of expectations as well as strengths
and weaknesses. There is no ideal form of
planning for all cases. Today watershed
plans could be one or all of these types,
depending on your needs and preferred
choice.
Planning expertise can often be lacking in
community-based watershed planning
efforts, as it is not usually a discipline
associated with watershed efforts. One
suggestion is to work with your local county
and city planners to help improve your own
watershed planning process and product
(Huntington & Sommarstrom 2000).
Remember that the key is the process “the process by which people of different
vantage points come together, learn each
others’ languages, and begin to forge a
common language to describe what they
want to achieve with their rivers, streams,
and surrounding lands” (Environment Now
& Southern California Wetlands Recovery
Project, 2002).
8.1.3
Set Direction: Goals & Objectives
Your plan should be based on the direction
set by a hierarchy of consistent goals and
objectives. Following your group’s setting of
broad goals and specific objectives comes
the details of your proposed strategy, which
includes tasks, activities, or actions. The
latter can get more and more detailed within
the outline of your hierarchy. Too often,
What Helps Create Good Planning Decisions?
Your planning process will entail many decisions. Researchers have found that five key factors seem
to distinguish successful decision-making processes (i.e., decisions that will be implemented) from the
rest:
1. Builds trust
2. Builds understanding
3. Incorporates value differences
4. Provides opportunities for joint fact-finding
5. Provides incentives for collaboration and cooperation
Source: Wondolleck (1988) in: Saul & Faast (1993)
- 195 -
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
June, 2005
Concepts or ‘Schools’ of
Table
Planning
8.1
Defining the
terminology
Planning hierarchy
Strengths of plan
Planning
Weaknesses
Type of Planning
Description
Comprehensive
Sytematic, step-by-step
setting of goals and
objectives for a number
of related mgt. needs,
evaluation of
alternatives, adoption of
implementation
measures; also called
“rational planning”
Can recognize the
Term
interrelationships of
many
issues and disciplines;
Goal
emphasis on science and
data collection; logical
process is appealing;
used by many federal
Objective
agencies; needs strong
laws to implement.
High costs;Definition
too broad and
not site-specific enough; low
implementation
rates;ofoften
Broad statement
entails
a top-down
intent,
direction,process,
and
sopurpose.
little public support; may
create illusion of scientific
objectivity;
is not a
Specific,planning
clear statement
rational
science butdesired
an art;
that describes
Incremental
Developed and
implemented gradually
over time through a
bargaining process;
Focus is on specific
problems or issues &
short-term results,
which over time
address the larger
problems.
Results oriented with
focus on what can be
done; the public guides
and makes the plan;
Strategy
small-scale solutions
reduce risks; adopted
now as “adaptive
management”; little steps
Task
/
help map future
steps
without adequate science &
Explicit description
of
knowledge;
implementation
what
will be
may
or may
not done
be to
achieve objectives.
coordinated;
continual
interaction required with
Specific
step, practice,
clients
for implementation
Consensus
Involves as many
stakeholders in an area
as possible; all players
treated as equals;
implementation based
on negotiated political
agreement.
Implementation rates high
due to political buy-in; can
be successful in resolving
difficult issues; helps
communities build and
(Saul &for
Faast
learn; good strategy
attracting diversified
funding sources
job done,
usually
Process
can be
lengthy and
organized
sequentially
perceived
as too
“timeconsuming”;
plan may
with timelines
and be a
package
of diverse benefits
assignments.
to satisfy partners but not
1993)
focused and integrated; very
difficult individuals can derail
the process.
Advocacy
Citizens organize to
advocate a position or
action; plan used to
strategically show
alternative approach to
a more traditional one.
Can be politically
empowering if coalition or
consensus is developed;
can help with community
building across formerly
disparate groups; can
break political impasse
Technical content of plan
may be professional but
may not be representative of
broader community; may
lack integration with other
disciplines; polarization may
result if consensus not
reached from advocacy.
Action
Initiated by citizen
groups, districts, and
agencies to make
something visible and
positive happen on the
ground in order to build
public support and
interest; a form of
incremental planning.
Builds public awareness
for the difficult Big Picture
needs and watershedwide approaches; confers
credibility on planning
process; can develop
credibility for government
programs or expertise;
helps develop new
community leadership
Small action projects may or
may not correctly apply
science or restoration
methodologies; plans may
not develop enough
integration, coordination, or
expertise; monitoring may
be lacking.
Action
condition for a specific
area, may
activity,
or species.
Actions
not address
May
be
qualitative
or
some of larger, more difficult
quantitative.
issues;
plans may proceed
or procedure to get the
(based on Riley 1998)
these plan terms are used sloppily or
interchangeably and unclear expectations
can result. Purported “plans” with no stated
goals or objectives and only a list of
recommendations do not give any measure
for evaluating success in the direction you
desire for your watershed.
- 196 -
Table 8.1 provides practical definitions for
the terms most commonly applied to a
plan’s structure.
While your Goal statements can be longterm and somewhat lofty, your Objective
statements should be more achievable
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
June, 2005
(Conservation Technology Information
Center, 1994). Examples of such
Objectives include: “Reduce sediment to
improve habitat for trout” or “Incorporate
watershed protection into county and city
General Plans and Specific Area Plans”.
Each goal will likely have more than one
objective, and each objective may have
more than one strategy, which may have
more than one task/action. One way to
check if your draft statements for each of
these terms make sense is to read them
from the bottom up (tasks-strategyobjective-goal).
new strategies. Watersheds - and their
social and political community - are dynamic
systems with changing needs. Economic
cycles may affect the availability of partners
and funding sources to share costs of your
plan’s implementation. With stakeholders
and other key decision-makers changing
over time, plans will also need to reflect
continually evolving priorities and
practicalities.
8.1.4
In the huge Columbia River Basin, the
Northwest Power and Conservation Council
(NPCC) called in 2000 for the development
of approximately 60 subbasin plans that are
to guide implementation of its Columbia
Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The
management plans were to help the Council
prioritize projects for a limited amount of
funding, through identification of past and
ongoing work (the inventory) and an
assessment of habitat conditions and
factors that limit fish and wildlife production,.
A “Technical Guide for Subbasin Planners”
was prepared to assist those developing a
subbasin plan (http://www.nwcouncil.org/).
8.1.5 Examples of Watershed Plans
8.1.5.1 Subbasin Plans
Revising & Updating Plans
Plans should be viewed as “living
documents” that are assumed to change as
needed, and not remain fixed to gather dust.
Dog-eared pages of plans are a good sign
that they are being used frequently. But
even well-used plans still need regular
review, updates, and revisions. This cyclical
evaluation and opportunity for adjustment is
a form of adaptive management, which is
encouraged by the scientific community but
not widely practiced (Born & Genskow
2001).
As the Washington Guide to Watershed
Planning and Management states, “A
watershed plan does not need to offer all
the answers. Instead, it can lay out a longterm process towards finding answers and
improving solutions…” Plan to be
adaptable!
Through experience, monitoring results, and
other continuing assessments, your group
will evolve a greater understanding of what
implementation actions work and do not
work in your watershed. Restoration and
ecosystem management are still in the
experimental stages, and feedback is
necessary for their progress. New
challenges, such as rapidly increasing
development in a rural sub-watershed or a
recently discovered pollutant or invasive
species, may stimulate your group to go
back to the drawing boards and develop
- 197 -
The NPCC's Independent Scientific Review
Panel (ISRP) reviews each draft plan to
determine if it meets the Council’s
expectations for completeness and scientific
soundness (e.g., the Program’s Scientific
Principles). In particular, the Panel is
concerned that subbasin plans address:



the need to adequately use available
information,
the need to clearly link the Assessment,
the Inventory, and the analysis of
information in these two documents to
the resulting Management Plan, and
the need to carry the planning process
to scientifically justified, integrated, and
prioritized conclusions in the form of
realistic priorities for achievable "next
steps" for managing the subbasin's fish
and wildlife populations.
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
(http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isr
p2004-4.htm)
8.1.5.2 Water Quality Emphasis Plans
Watershed-based plans are encouraged by
both the EPA and SWRCB for various water
quality-related programs, such as the
Nonpoint Source (NPS), storm water
management, and TMDL programs.
Expectations for federally-funded or
required watershed management plans are
described under EPA’s Section 205(j) and
Section 319 grant programs. Polluted runoff
is also being addressed through the State
and Regional Boards’ Watershed
Management Initiative (WMI), which
promotes “integrated planning” with local
stakeholder groups.
A well-developed example is the Santa
Clara Basin Watershed Management
Initiative (WMI) (http://www.scbwmi.org).
This collaborative effort has prepared a
three-volume Watershed Management Plan,
composed of a Watershed Characteristics
Report, a Watershed Assessment Report,
and a Watershed Action Plan. Water quality
is the primary focus, but other watershed
values and uses are also incorporated.
Urban runoff management triggered by
municipal storm water permitting helped
initiate much of the San Diego watershed
planning efforts
(http://www.projectcleanwater.org/html/ws_e
June, 2005
fforts.html). Some of these urban runoff
plans appear to have meshed or integrated
with other watershed issues, some have
not. As a means of complying with a
regulatory program, these watershed plans
and their implementation need to maintain
their focus on water quality compliance.
8.1.5.3 Coastal Watershed Plans
The State Coastal Conservancy encourages
the development of watershed plans
through financial and technical assistance to
local groups and has prepared a short
Watershed Planning Guide outlining a stepby-step sequence of actions during the
process to achieve a watershed plan. While
acknowledging that every watershed will
have a unique planning process, the Guide
seeks to highlight the steps that are
common to most planning efforts as well as
the stumbling blocks: “It should be modified
as much as necessary to fit the particular
circumstances of your watershed.” Since
the Conservancy funds many projects, it
sees the plans as a means of identifying
and prioritizing coastal restoration projects.
A variety of watershed efforts have used
Conservancy assistance to prepare plans
(http://www.coastalconservancy.ca.gov).
These plans include, but are not limited to,
the watersheds of: Tomales Bay, Pescadero
Marsh, Aptos Creek, Morro Bay, Calleguas
Creek / Mugu Lagoon, Arroyo Seco, and
San Luis Rey River.
Some helpful hints for reviewing and revising watershed plans are:
 Have a yearly informal “here’s where we are” session to update folks on plan
implementation.
 Ask people to evaluate your planning process so you can do better next time.
 Issue periodic “report cards” to the public on plan implementation and monitoring results
to keep them informed and to “give dignity to the plan”.
 Ask yourselves, “Do we still need to do this action?”; “Has our vision changed?”; “What
else can we do?”; “What has been successful, and why?”; “What has not worked, and
why?”
 Celebrate your successes! You’ve accomplished several tasks, you’ve achieved an
objective, or you’ve made significant progress towards your goal. Feel good about your
progress!
Sources: Saul and Faast (1993); Conservation Technology Information Center (1994)
- 198 -
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
In coastal Southern California, there are
“many different patterns to get watershed
planning underway”, rather than a single
rational sequence of events (Environment
Now & Southern California Wetlands
Recovery Project, 2002). A snapshot at the
end of 2002 revealed that watershed
management planning was “still in its
infancy” in the five-county region, but many
new efforts were underway. Of 20
completed plans, most were for partial
watersheds and a number focused on the
same region (e.g., Santa Monica Bay and
Los Angeles River). Los Angeles County
was the most productive for completed or
in-progress watershed plans. The Santa
Monica Bay, part of the National Estuary
Program, region had 4 completed
watershed plans, supported by over 80
studies. Water pollution and recreation
concerns initially jump-started these
collaborative restoration planning efforts,
such as in the Malibu and Topanga Creek
watersheds.
8.2
June, 2005
Restoration plans and projects need a solid
scientific underpinning to be successful. A
recent study by the State found, “Absence
of useful watershed assessments and plans
can result in restoration projects that don’t
address priority problems and their causes”
(California Resources Agency & State
Water Resources Control Board, 2002).
Agencies are concerned that projects may
be scattered, unfocused on achieving
watershed management objectives and,
therefore, inefficiently using state grant
funding.
The analysis contained in a watershed
assessment lays the very foundation for
successful restoration projects. The
analysis made as part of the assessment
serves to explain, based on the best
available information, the likely causes of
the alterations within the watershed that led
to the need for the restoration activities.
More specifically, the analysis in the
assessment can help to:
Restoration Planning and Projects

Restoration efforts are frequently an
important part of a watershed plan or they
can be undertaken independently of a plan
as an application of a watershed
assessment. California is the home to
multiple state- and federally-funded
restoration programs that have evolved from
diverse legislative mandates, ballot
initiatives, and citizen-sponsored programs.
The term “restoration” offers a sense of
purpose, of restoring something that has
been lost, and has developed a popular
following throughout the state. We seek to
“restore” many natural features within the
watershed: fisheries, wetlands, streams,
water quality, ecosystems, and habitat,
among others.




Provide baseline and reference data,
with which to compare restoration
progress or success.
Help understand the patterns of water
and sediment transport that create and
maintain the natural morphology of the
channel and its associated floodplain.
Provide information for aquatic
restoration, including descriptions of
upslope connections to the riparian and
waterway
Help identify the causes and not just the
symptoms of problems needing
correction.
Reveal restoration opportunities,
including getting beyond preconceived
perceptions about problems and
“Watershed-scale restoration should begin with an understanding of watershed structure
and function and of how human activities affect and shape watershed health.” (Williams,
Wood & Dombeck 1997)
“To achieve long-term success, aquatic ecosystem restoration should address the causes
and not just the symptoms of ecological disturbance.” (NRC 1992, p. 55)
- 199 -
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
June, 2005
solutions.
Coordinate with other stakeholders in
developing a common understanding of
how the watershed behaves
Provide basis for a Restoration Plan,
including goals and objectives.
Help identify types of restoration
methods needed to address the problem
causes.
Locate the priority sub-watersheds,
stream reaches, or other areas within
the watershed for restoration projects,
based on the above.
Identify priority restoration projects,
based on the above
altered, before prescribing the remedies.
It is the physical and biological processes
operating in the watershed are the
mechanisms that govern the watershed’s
condition. Working with the natural
processes in your restoration strategy will
improve your chances of success. Some
players tend to be more interested in the
project phase than the assessment or
planning phase, and they might not have
been aware or interested in your
assessment process. Their enthusiasm
might also get ahead of them. Do a reality
check with everyone on previous restoration
assumptions and project ideas now that the
assessment is completed.
The California Department of Fish and
Game’s California Salmonid Stream Habitat
Restoration Manual recommends that a
‘preliminary watershed assessment’ be
done to get the “big picture” about present
and potential fish production in a stream
system before beginning field surveys and
designing projects. However, the
expectation is more of a watershed
“overview” rather than a full assessment as
described in this Manual. The concept still
advocated is that restoration efforts need to
address how the watershed works and what
key processes and conditions have been
Moving from watershed condition evaluation
- your assessment - into identifying the
appropriate restoration measures often
involves another set of skills and
approaches. Applied science and
technologies tend to become more
important, such as engineering, surveying,
contracting, heavy equipment, and resource
management skills. Experience with what
works and doesn’t work with certain
restoration techniques, especially in your
area, becomes of critical importance. Some
agencies, consultants, landowners, and





An Example of a Fluvial Restoration Strategy
The Goal of fluvial restoration in _____ Watershed is to restore the river or stream to
dynamic equilibrium. [The assumption is that dynamic equilibrium of the physical system
establishes a dynamic equilibrium in the biological components.]
The Objectives under this broad goal are to:
1. Restore the natural sediment and water regime. [‘Regime’ refers to at least two time
scales: the daily-to-seasonal variation in water and sediment loads, and the annualto-decadal patterns of floods and droughts.]
2. Restore the natural channel geometry, if restoration of the water and sediment
regime alone does not.
3. Restore the natural riparian plant community, which becomes a functioning part of
the channel geometry and floodplain/ riparian hydrology. [This step is necessary
only if the plant community does not restore itself upon achievement of objectives 1
and 2.
4. Restore native aquatic plants and animals, if they do not re-colonize on their own.
Source: National Research Council (1992) pp. 206-207.
- 200 -
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
citizen organizations may have a wealth of
experience with certain methods – be sure
to ask around. Use the same collaborative
process applied to your assessment, but
now bring in those people with the applied
restoration skills. This difference in needed
expertise is one of the reasons that project
recommendations within the watershed
assessment product can appear naïve or
impractical when evaluated later by
restoration practitioners (Riley 1998).
8.3
Land Use Planning
Watershed assessments are intimately tied
to land use planning. The relationship
between land use and watershed conditions
and processes has been described in detail
in this Manual. However, this relationship is
not always appreciated by local planning
department staff, planning commissioners,
or city council members who make
decisions about land uses. Usually, people
in these positions are civic-minded
individuals with no special knowledge of
watersheds and how land uses influences
the hydrological cycle as well as other
potential impacts on waterways. The
information generated by a watershed
assessment and plan could be invaluable to
local decision-makers.
California planning law requires that
landowners and local planning agencies
engage in the formulation of zoning and
parcel-specific land use plans to guide the
development of residential, commercial, and
industrial areas. The most common way of
doing this is through the general plan
process, where a municipality or county
planning agency decides which areas in the
jurisdiction should fall under which zone
type and what proportions of land uses
would be appropriate.
Land use planning is the process by which
public agencies, mostly local governments,
determine the intensity and geographical
arrangements of various land uses in a
community
Fulton, 1999
- 201 -
June, 2005
There are very few instances where
watershed assessments have been used
explicitly to aid decision-making in land-use
planning, although information contained in
an assessment could be very useful for
planning purposes. Orange County has
conducted many watershed assessments
through cooperative arrangements with the
Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). These
assessments are associated with
restoration goals and programs and are not
explicitly intended to support land-use
decision-making. However, they contain
information relevant for land-use decisions
and could be used in that fashion.
Some of the information frequently
contained in a watershed assessment that
could be used to support land use planning
includes:
o Data on surface and ground hydrology
under natural and modified conditions
o Stream bank stability and channel
characteristics which are influenced by
the area of impervious surfaces and
other land use modifications
o Existing and potential future surface and
ground water quality under different land
use and development scenarios
o Biological diversity and status of aquatic
and riparian species of plants and
animals
8.3.1
General Plans
Municipal and county general plans govern
the development of land annexed by a city
for residential, commercial, or industrial
development and general or specific uses of
lands within a county outside developed
areas1General plan “elements” (e.g., land
use, circulation, open space; see chapter
3.10) are used to detail the planned growth
and consequences of the growth. Because
1
These plans are required by Govt. Code
65300 et seq. and are implemented through
policy narratives, zoning ordinances and
maps (Gov’t. Code 65850 et seq.), and
subdivision maps and regulations (Gov’t.
Code 66410 et seq.; Fulton, 1999).
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
a general plan must be analyzed for its
potential impacts to the environment
(California Environmental Quality Act), there
is a nexus between the plan and watershed
assessment. CEQA requires that the ‘best
available information’ be used to evaluate
potential impacts of a general plan or a
specific project. Many times, the best
available information can be found in
watershed assessments. For example, the
land use element must show the location,
distribution, and intensity of development
and particular elements (e.g., wastewater
treatment facilities) allowed under the plan.
This is usually done using a map, which
along with zoning and parcel maps can
make the general plan process a very
tangible part of watershed assessment and
vice-versa. Frequently, consultants hired to
perform CEQA assessments rely on
incomplete databases or field assessments
of limited scope. The information in a
watershed assessment could be an
invaluable source of data and analysis of
conditions.

Both the federal and California
Endangered Species Acts require that
populations and habitats of listed
species be protected from take
(destruction of habitat or individuals), or
if take is planned, that it be mitigated.
For aquatic, wetlands, vernal pool, and
riparian species this would seem to
require a watershed perspective for
general planning as developed areas
will have direct and indirect impacts on
aquatic natural processes, wildlife, and
plants. Watershed assessments can
inform these decisions by showing the
linkages between existing and proposed
land-use decisions in the general plan
and downstream habitat and
populations of listed species.

The federal Clean Water Act and the
state Porter-Cologne Act require that
state regulators analyze and consider
for permitting any activity that may
cause harm (e.g., pollution) to California
waterways and wetlands.
Watershed assessments can inform
these decisions by showing the linkages
between existing and proposed land-use
decisions in the general plan and
downstream habitat, water quality,
channel conditions, and natural
processes (e.g., flooding).
(see “Improving our Bay-Delta Estuary
Through Local Plans and Programs: A
Guidebook for City and County
Governments (Association of Bay Area
Governments, Oakland, CA), 1995, 21
pp.)

The federal National Environmental
Policy Act and the California
Environmental Quality Act require that
plans such as general plans be
analyzed for potential impacts to human
and natural environments. Alternative
plans must be put forward by the lead
planning agency, based in part on public
input, that show different ways to
achieve the plan’s objectives and the
potential impacts from each alternative.
The lead agency must, theoretically,
There are three locations in the state where
state law requires the consideration of
natural resource protection at a “pseudowatershed scale“ when developing general
plans. These are the Lake Tahoe basin, the
California coastline, and the Sacramento
and San Joaquin Rivers Delta. In all other
parts of the state, there is nothing
approximating a requirement to consider
watershed processes when developing
plans.
Three classes of regulations require that the
effects of harmful actions be mitigated,
though rarely is this requirement
accompanied by performance measures for
the evaluation of effectiveness. A watershed
assessment approach could be used in
conjunction with wildlife and habitat
assessments to expose the environmental
costs and benefits of actions proposed in a
general plan, or that were not considered
feasible (e.g., restoring natural processes or
features). The three classes of regulations
are:
- 202 -
June, 2005
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
choose the least environmentally
damaging and feasible alternative.
Watershed assessment can list the
various natural and human features
June, 2005
(e.g., streams and roads) and processes
(e.g., agriculture and fire) that are
important in watersheds and subwatersheds within the general planning
Watershed-related References in the State’s General Plan Guidelines
[Office of Planning & Research; http://www.opr.ca.gov]
Watershed Based flood protection , p. 12 Safety Element
Cities and counties should identify risks from natural hazards which extend across jurisdictional
boundaries, then use any available data from watershed-based floodplain management, mapped
earthquake faults, or high fire hazard areas as planning tools to address any significant issues. Each
local planning agency carries a responsibility to coordinate its general plan with regional planning
efforts as much as possible.
Relationships Among Elements and Issues, p. 37
General plan elements and issues interrelate functionally. For example, consideration given to the
vegetation which supports an endangered wildlife species in the conservation element also involves
analyzing topography, weather, fire hazards, availability of water, and density of development in
several other elements. Thus, the preparation of a general plan must be approached on multiple
levels and from an interdisciplinary point of view.
Ideas for Data and Analysis, Open-Space, p. 38
The following consists of topics which should be considered during the preparation of the general
plan and, if relevant, included in a land use element. These subjects are based upon a close
reading of the statutes and case law. When the information collected for the land use element
overlaps that needed for other elements, the related element has been noted in parenthesis.
 Delineate the boundaries of watersheds, aquifer re-charge areas, floodplains, and the depth of
groundwater basins (diagrams) (CO, OS, S)
 Delineate the boundaries and description of unique water resources (e.g., saltwater and
freshwater marshes, wetlands, riparian corridors, wild rivers and streams, lakes). (CO)
Conservation Element
The conservation element may also cover the following optional issues:
 Protection of watersheds;
Water, p. 56-7
 Inventory water resources, including rivers, lakes, streams, bays, estuaries, reservoirs, ground
water basins (aquifers), and watersheds (Map) (LU, OS)
 Identify the boundaries of watersheds, aquifer recharge areas, and groundwater basins
(including depths) (Map) LU, OS)
- Assess local and regional water supply and the related plans of special districts and other
agencies
- Analyze the existing land use and zoning within said boundaries and the approximate
intensity of water consumption
 Map the boundaries and describe unique water resources (e.g., salt water and fresh water
marshes and wild rivers) (LU, OS)
 Assess the current and future quality of various bodies of water, water courses, and
groundwater (LU, OS)
 Inventory existing and future water supply sources for domestic, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural uses (LU, OS)
 Assess existing and projected demands upon water supply sources, in conjunction with water
suppliers (LU, OS)
- Including: agricultural, commercial, residential, industrial, and public use
 Assess the adequacy of existing and future water supply sources, in conjunction with water
suppliers. (LU, OS)
- 203 -
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
area. It can describe the overall and
localized condition, make linkages
between human activities and condition,
and serve as a major type of
environmental assessment against
which to judge proposed actions.
In all of the above cases, data contained in
a watershed assessment can aide local
municipalities in meeting these
requirements. Frequently, the analysis
performed by local government is
June, 2005
incomplete and omits important information
related to protecting waterways. The data
and analyses contained in an assessment
can play an important role in informing local
decisions-makers of this important
information. In cases where general plans
are being adopted, community watershed
groups should bring their analysis to the
attention of local planning commissions and
city councils to ensure that all requirements
can be evaluated with the best available
and most complete set of information.
Watershed-related Citations in the General Plan Guidelines [Office of Planning &
Research] cont’d.
 Map riparian vegetation (LU, OS)
 Assess the use of water bodies for recreation purposes (LU, OS)
Forests, p. 62
 Inventory forest resources including a comprehensive analysis of conservation needs for forests,
woodlands and the interrelationship they have with watersheds (Map) (LU, OS)
- Describe the type, location, amount, and ownership of forests with a value for
commercial timber production, wildlife protection, recreation, watershed protection,
aesthetics, and other purposes
Fisheries, p. 62
 Identify water bodies and watersheds that must be protected or rehabilitated to promote
continued recreational and commercial fishing – including key fish spawning areas
 Evaluate water quality, temperature, and sources of contaminates
 Identify physical barriers (man-caused or natural) to fish populations within the watershed, then
propose alternatives and set priorities
Open-Space Element, Background, p. 68
The following topics are to be addressed, to the extent that they are locally relevant:
Open-space for the preservation of natural resources including, but not limited to:
 Areas required for ecologic and other scientific study; rivers, streams, bays and estuaries; and,
coastal beaches, lake shores, banks of rivers and streams, and watersheds;
Open-space for public health and safety including, but not limited to:
 Areas that require special management or regulation because of hazardous or special
conditions such as earthquake fault zones, unstable soil areas, flood-plains, watersheds, areas
presenting high fire risks, areas required for the protection of water quality and water reservoirs
and areas required for the protection and enhancement of air quality.
 Identify watersheds and key areas for the protection of water quality and reservoirs (map) (CO)
Safety Element, p. 77
Flood Hazard - A comprehensive approach should include mapping floodplains…, and floodplain
management policies (which may include both structural and non-structural approaches to flood
control using a multi-objective watershed approach). Flooding is often a regional problem that
crosses multiple jurisdictional boundaries.
Slope instability and the associated risk of mudslides and landslides
• Identify areas that are landslide-prone by using, among other sources, Division of Mines and
Geology’s seismic hazard zone maps, landslide hazard identification maps, watershed maps,
and geology for planning maps, and landslide features maps produced by the U.S. Geological
Survey (map) (OS)

[General Plan Elements: LU=Land Use; OS=Open Space; CO=Conservation; S=Safety ]
- 204 -
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
When considering informing general
planning with snapshot or continuing
watershed assessment work, scale is an
important quality to keep in mind. A finegrained assessment is needed to judge the
impacts of parcel and subdivision scales of
development activities. A coarse-grained
watershed-wide assessment is not an
adequate substitute for this. Similarly, the
right time frame for analyzing and modeling
potential impacts is needed. Changes in
watershed functions and outputs may be
immediate, substantial, and long-lasting at
the sub-watershed scale and not
measurable until full general plan build-out
at the river basin scale. Matching scales of
assessment or monitoring activity is critical
in the use of this approach in informing
general planning.
8.3.2
Examples of these ordinances are:

Subdivision & zoning ordinances
Data from your watershed assessment
combined with information on
watershed-friendly ordinances could be
a powerful tool in the hands of local land
use planners. Information on model
ordinances, design guidelines, and other
relevant guidance for local officials is
available online from the Center for
Watershed Protection
(http:www.cwp.org), the Low Impact
Development Center
(http://ww.lowimpactdevelopment.org)
and the NEMO Project
(http://www.nemo.uconn.edu).

Flooding and floodplain development
ordinances are a useful way for local
governments to reduce damage from
flooding. Guidance from the State on the
development of general plans to
minimize flooding can be combined with
data your assessment has produced to
identify the need for sound development
planning. The state’s guidance is
posted at:
http://www.fpm.water.ca.gov/generalpla
n.html.

Stormwater runoff and dumping into
storm drains are a commonlyrecognized problems in urban settings,.
Because developed areas have highly
impervious surfaces (e.g., roads and
parking lots), water will not percolate
naturally into the ground over large
areas. Stormwater not only frequently
contains contaminants that is harmful to
aquatic life, but the increased volume
associated with reduced percolation is
damaging to streams. Chemicals tend to
collect on impervious surfaces and
attached to dust and dirt particles.
When it rains, especially with the first
rain of the rainy season, these
chemicals can be washed into local
streams. Similarly, illegal dumping of
chemicals into industrial, commercial,
and stormwater drains can be an
Ordinances
Municipal or county ordinances govern
certain uses of public and private property
and their environmental impacts. These are
binding and enforceable at that scale and
tied to local problems and governance
styles. For example, a rural county with
natural fire ecology may be very proactive in
enforcing vegetation control immediately
around structures, whereas an urban county
or municipality may be very active about
dumping into storm drains. Information
contained in watershed assessments can
also be useful to local decisions makers in
crafting local ordinances that might impact
the health and conditions of waterways. In
particular, data on the conditions of local
waterways and the links to local land uses,
could be used to highlight the impacts of
local policies on watershed health. The
development of ordinances dealing with
flooding and floodplains, stormwater run-off,
subdivision landscaping and design, roads
and grading, and stream buffers or setbacks
all could benefit from knowledge and
analyses typically contained in a watershed
assessment.
- 205 -
June, 2005
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
occasional but major input to streams.
Municipal and county ordinances can
regulate the flow of water and chemicals
from urbanized areas. If excessive
storm flows and diffuse or localized
chemical inputs are disrupting your
waterways, then storm water and
dumping ordinances could help. Water
quality analysis, impacts to aquatic
biota, diversion of surface water from
natural percolation areas, and timing
and volumes of flow of storm water
described in your watershed
assessment can help determine if this
type of ordinance might be helpful.

8.4
Landscaping and water conservation
ordinances can regulate the rate of
pesticide application and irrigation in
order to reduce the input of chemicals
and excessive water into streams.
Pesticides can cause direct mortality of
aquatic biota, excessive nutrients can
cause potentially harmful algae blooms,
and summer irrigation in arid areas can
upset the ecology of seasonally dry
streams in the arid West. The state of
Vermont and the cities of Sebastopol
(CA), Buffalo (NY), and Burlington (VT)
limit the application of pesticides to
residential and forestry landscapes to
reduce impacts to human and
ecosystem health. If pesticides and
excessive nutrients from fertilizer
applications are a problem in your
waterways, then municipal ordinances
restricting these chemicals could be
appropriate. Water quality analysis and
the condition of aquatic communities
described in your watershed
assessment could inform local
government officials about the
development of landscaping ordinances.
Public Lands Management
On federally-managed lands, watershed
assessments are usually termed watershed
analyses. Some people believe the term
“analysis” implies more detail at a finer
spatial scale than typical “assessments”, but
- 206 -
June, 2005
“analysis” is the usual term used by the
Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management for their process.
These watershed analyses on federal lands
became institutionalized during the
development of the Northwest Forest Plan
(FEMAT 1993, USDA-Forest Service 1994).
Among the recommendations of the
Northwest Forest Plan was an aquatic
conservation strategy intended to improve
stream conditions for anadromous fish. A
major part of this strategy was an
assessment process that became known as
watershed analysis. Although it was initially
designed to focus on riparian issues, federal
watershed analysis was soon recognized to
be useful for evaluating a broad range of
issues throughout a watershed (Grant
1994). During the 1990s, watershed
analysis evolved as a tool for describing
watershed attributes, issues, and
capabilities that would form the basis of
future land management on National
Forests and Bureau of Land Management
properties (Reid, et al. 1994).
Individual National Forests and some BLM
offices have been conducting watershed
analyses for the past decade using the
protocol outlined by USDA-Forest Service
(1995). In the federal context, watershed
analysis is a tool for description and
assessment of watershed processes and
ecological conditions. It is based on
processes, ecosystem components, and
locations, but not on projects or proposals
as is typical of other Forest Service planning
processes. Watershed analysis on federal
lands is not designed to produce a decision
document and is not subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act. Instead, the
information generated from a watershed
analysis can be used to inform and guide
the projects that eventually implement a
forest plan.
The basic parts of watershed analysis as
described in the Federal Guide to
Watershed Analysis (USDA-Forest Service
1995) include the following: The usual scale
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
of analysis is for watersheds of 20 to 200
mi2. A particular watershed is selected for
analysis on the basis of regional interests,
controversies, and opportunities for
management. Public input is sought to
identify critical issues, locate contributing
information, and provide reality checks. The
federal approach includes the following
steps:
1) Characterization of the watershed
2) Identification of issues and key
questions
3) Description of current conditions
4) Description of reference conditions
5) Synthesis and interpretation of
information
6) Recommendations (usually including
desired future conditions and potential
strategies for moving the landscape
toward those conditions)
The resulting report of a federal watershed
analysis usually includes:
1) Description of the watershed including
its natural and cultural features
2) Description of the beneficial uses and
values associated with the watershed
and, when supporting data allow,
statements about compliance with water
quality standards
3) Description of the distribution, type, and
relative importance of environmental
processes
4) Description of the watershed’s present
condition relative to its associated
values and uses
5) Maps of interim and potential riparian
reserves
6) Description of the mechanisms by which
environmental changes have occurred
and description of specific land-use
activities in generating change
7) Description of likely future
environmental conditions in the
watershed, including discussion of
trends and potential effects of past
activities
8) Interpretations and management
recommendations
- 207 -
June, 2005
Much of the federal guide covers various
analysis methods for describing key
processes and conditions and their possible
causes. These topics include fire history,
existing and potential vegetation, roads,
mass movements, surface erosion, channel
erosion, sediment yield, streamflow
characteristics, runoff generation, stream
temperature, channel conditions, aquatic
and terrestrial habitat, and water supply.
Descriptions of these methods include
generic goals, data needs, assumptions,
products, and procedures at both a cursory
level and a more quantitative level
depending on the needs of a study (USDAForest Service 1995). Another related set
of procedures that focus on watershed
hydrology is found in the publication, A
Framework for Analyzing the Hydrologic
Condition of Watersheds (McCammon, et
al. 1998).
If your watershed includes some National
Forest land, looking at the approaches and
techniques of the federal guide is certainly
worthwhile. The “analytic modules” will
provide some guidance for a variety of
measurements and analyses that may be
appropriate for your situation. Just decide
on your objectives first and see if any of the
federal procedures would help meet those
objectives, rather than charging into a
measurement program just because the
Forest Service finds it useful.
Within the National Forests of California, a
variety of watershed analyses have been
conducted. In general, the forests in the
northern part of the state that were part of
the Northwest Forest Plan have had a more
active (and better funded) watershed
analysis program. This program has been
driven by northern spotted owl and salmon
issues. The Shasta-Trinity National Forest
has produced more than a dozen watershed
analyses. Other forests are still working on
their first analysis. The quality and level of
detail of the initial round of watershed
analyses is quite inconsistent, depending on
the issues and local support for a particular
analysis. Many of the watershed analyses
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
have had their scope expanded somewhat
by also incorporating guidance from the
Region 5 (California) guide to ecosystem
management (Manley et al. 1995).
Reduction of the risk of catastrophic
wildfires through management of fuels is the
primary focus of many of the recent
watershed analyses. At least one analysis
has incorporated hydroelectric project relicensing as the principal issue. The ultimate
utility of the wide range of watershed
analyses is yet to be determined. The Sierra
Nevada Framework for revising the Forest
Plans of the National Forests of the Sierra
Nevada includes a major component of
watershed analyses, but few had been
completed to date within the Sierra Nevada.
Web sites for most of the National Forests
include the completed reports as well as
progress of ongoing efforts.
Perhaps the most comprehensive
watershed analysis completed to date on
federal land in California and Nevada was
for the Lake Tahoe Basin (USDA-Forest
Service 2000). The national significance
and public visibility of the Lake Tahoe Basin
allowed an investment of about $2 million in
this assessment. The document is a good
source of ideas and approaches to
watershed assessment, even if your budget
is on a somewhat smaller scale.
You can take advantage of watershed
analyses done by the National Forest in
your region for a variety of background
material relevant to your own watershed
assessment. Check the web site of your
local National Forest for completed
watershed analyses. They may be found
under resource management, watersheds,
or publication or by using the web site’s
search engine. Alternatively, call the nearest
ranger district or supervisor’s office and ask
about watershed analyses that have been
completed or are in progress. The basic
descriptions of climate, hydrology,
vegetation, management, and disturbance
history may be directly applicable to your
watershed if the analysis area is close
- 208 -
June, 2005
enough or may provide some good leads for
pursuing information about your watershed.
We recommend that you use Forest Service
watershed analyses as information sources
and not as templates or models for your
assessment. Your fundamental goals and
driving issues are likely to be quite different
than the motivations behind the federal
analyses.
8.5
Water Management
A consideration of watershed conditions is
part of an integrated water management
plan. In previous eras, water management
was viewed primarily from an engineering
perspective – how to deliver and dispose of
water. More recently, however, the
structure and function of the overall
watershed is considered as another
important factor in water management.
Integrated water management has the
potential to go beyond watershed
management which focuses on conditions in
the waterway and the processes that
influence them. Science-based integrated
water management considers the best way
to develop/retrofit infrastructure in
coordination with land use planning and
protection of the aquatic ecosystem. The
term “best way” reflects the development of
a plan that includes the wise use of water,
the environmental sound disposal of
stormwater and wastewater, land use plans,
and ecosystem protection and restoration.
To address all these issues successfully
involvement of critical stakeholders is
essential. Watershed assessments can
provide an important source of
information and analysis that is required
for the development of an integrated
water management plan.
In 1998, the Washington State legislature
passed the Watershed Planning Act to set a
framework for addressing the State’s water
resource issues… When lawmakers passed
the Act, they stated that the primary
purpose of the statute was "…to develop a
more thorough and cooperative method
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
of determining the current water
situation in each water resource
inventory area of the state and to provide
local citizens with the maximum possible
input concerning their goals and
objectives…". This statement identifies the
purpose and issues associated with water
management. To manage water, issues of
surface and groundwater water supply and
quality need to be evaluated.
In 2002, several acts were passed in
California that were aimed at achieving
similar goals as Washington state. The
statutes added to the Water Code are:


Integrated Regional Water
Management Planning Act of 2002
(Water Code sections 10530-10537)
was created by SB 1672 (Costa). This
act’s implementation is to lead to the
development of integrated regional
water management plans, as a means
of “maximizing the quality and quantity
of water available to meet the state’s
water needs by providing a framework
for local agencies to integrate programs
and projects that protect and enhance
regional water supplies.” A "regional
water management group" is defined as
“three or more local public agencies, at
least two of which have statutory
authority over water supply.”
Groundwater management and grantfunded projects are also to be tied into
such plans (section 10753.7)
The Integrated Water Management
Program (IWMP) (sections 79560-63)
was created by Proposition 50 as a
grant program operated by two state
agencies: the Department of Water
Resources (DWR) and the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB). It
requires that eligible projects are
consistent with an adopted integrated
regional water management plan, or
such a plan is in progress. Such a plan
under the DWR grant program is to
address, at a minimum: water-related
objectives and conflicts in the
- 209 -
June, 2005
watersheds of the region, including: 1)
water supply, 2) groundwater
management, 3) ecosystem restoration,
and 4) water quality.
The details and coordination of these new
programs are being worked out by the
departments and the California Watershed
Council, a state-supported collaborative
partnership effort
(http://cwp.resources.ca.gov/cwc_about.htm
l). Under the SWRCB program, the
integrated plan must be designed “to
improve regional water supply reliability,
water recycling, water conservation, water
quality improvement, storm water capture
and management, flood management,
recreation and access, wetlands
enhancement and creation, and
environmental and habitat protection and
improvement.”
In addition to contributing to sounder land
use planning, a watershed plan and the
assessment on which it is based, can also
inform the integrated water management
effort. The analysis of the effects of human
activities on watershed components and
processes needs to be integrated into a
water management plan. The impacts of
water conveyance and discharge must be
evaluated in this plan as well. This analysis
usually part of watershed assessments and
therefore, has direct relevance and use in
water management plans.
Integrated water management might include
some or all of the following:



2
Balancing water use with water supply
Connecting water supply protection with
watershed management.
Utilizing low impact development
methods2 to improved groundwater
Low impact development methods utilize
swales, rain gardens, pervious pavement,
landscaped bioretention structures, and other
integrated management practices to reduce
imperviousness and the production of
stormwater.
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight





recharge, reduced stormwater volume,
and protection and enhancement of
instream habitat
Integrating land use planning with water
management and ecosystem protection
Coordinating water supply infrastructure
and planning among water agencies
within a region
Affecting inter-basin water transfer and
delivery decisions, and/or
Linking regional water availability with
future land use development
Balancing viewpoints of diverse societal
interests into decisions about water
resource allocation.
A well-developed watershed assessment
has a number of important uses for water
management (Washington Department of
Energy, 1998):







Identifying the water supply and
demands within the watershed,
Analyzing the relationship between
surface water and ground water,
Analyzing the connection between water
quality and water quantity,
Integrating short-term and long-range
water planning,
Addressing and integrating water
quantity, quality, and habitat needs,
Providing part of the information that is
crucial to making water-right decisions.
Providing information the facilitates
decisions that protect and enhance the
aquatic ecosystem.
The following section reviews some of the
key components of an integrated water
management plan and identifies how
information generated in a watershed
assessment is useful for decision-making
around each of these issues.
to evaluate potential for water resources
development. Thorough field studies were
conducted early in the 20th century to
evaluate whether different watersheds had
the capability to serve as a reliable water
source for San Francisco (Freeman, 1912)
and Sacramento (Hyde, et al., 1916). These
studies included detailed descriptions of
watershed conditions.
However, in the 21st century, a primary use
for information from watershed
assessments related to water supply
projects will be in identifying alternatives for
operation of existing or proposed projects.
Such information can be used to identify
opportunities for alternative management of
facilities to serve new uses not recognized
during initial project design and
construction. A recent example is the July
2000 settlement agreement on the
operation of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company’s hydropower facilities on the
Mokelumne River. Detailed evaluations of
natural hydrology and system operation
contributed to the settlement agreement and
relicensing of the project (McGurk and
Paulson, 2000). About 30 hydroelectric
projects in California will go through the
relicensing process during this decade.
Proposals for “re-operation” of these and
other water projects will require much of the
basic hydrologic and operational hydraulic
information that might be contained in a
watershed assessment. However, the data
and analysis needs related to these projects
and proposals for different management will
usually be far more detailed than in a typical
watershed assessment.
Watershed assessment data useful for
water supply management

8.5.1. Water Supply

A key part of a water management plan is
identifying and planning for water supply.
Interestingly, the first watershed
assessments in California were conducted

- 210 -
June, 2005
Surface and ground water - present and
available in the watershed
Surface and ground water - use, by type
(agriculture, municipal, etc.)
Water rights summary, by source
(ground, surface)
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight





Water storage, by source (natural,
artificial)
Streamflow (max /min / mean acre-feet
per year)
Land use summary, by Type & % cover
Vegetation cover, by Type & % cover
Impervious surface area, % cover
Water information developed in a watershed
assessment can also help local land use
agencies in their decision-making.
Connecting water supply availability to land
use planning was required in recent state
legislation (e.g., SB 610 and SB 221 in
2001). While focused on large development
approvals, the new laws demand an
assessment of the water supply situation. In
Washington State, the legislature wanted
water rights decisions to be influenced by a
good watershed assessment and plan.
June, 2005
identified. Local protection programs are
enacted voluntarily, while the assessments
are mandatory.
For surface water sources, the watershed
boundaries above the point of diversion for
drinking water use delineate the logical
assessment area. Previously, a “watershed
sanitary survey” of the drinking water
source(s) was required at least every five
years, but the vulnerability ranking was not
a component. For ground water sources,
the source areas and protection zones are
delineated based on “readily available
hydrogeologic information on ground water
flow, recharge and discharge, and other
information deemed appropriate by the
State” (California Department of Health
Services, 1999). This ground water portion
of the DWSAP also serves as the State’s
wellhead protection program.
8.5.1.1 Drinking Water Source
Assessment and Protection Program
(DWSAP)
8.5.1.2 Groundwater Management
Planning
Watershed assessment can provide useful
information for drinking water source
protection efforts. Protecting sources of
drinking water is the purpose of the federal
and state Drinking Water Source
Assessment and Protection Program
(DWSAP). The initial part of this effort is the
Source Water Assessment Program
(SWAP), which is where watershed
assessments become directly relevant.
Each of California’s 15,000 active public
water systems must delineate the
boundaries of the area around their drinking
water source(s) through which contaminants
might move and reach that drinking water
supply. They next must inventory “possible
contaminating activities” (PCAs) that might
lead to the release of microbiological or
chemical contaminants within that
delineated area. This inventory allows for a
determination of the water source’s
vulnerability to contamination. After the
assessment and vulnerability analysis are
completed, the water source protection
approaches, including protection zones, are
Your watershed assessment may also be
able to contribute to a groundwater
management plan that is independent or
part of an integrated water management
plan, by improving an existing one or
helping to create a new one. A California
groundwater law, Assembly Bill 3030 (Water
Code section 10750-10756), provides a
systematic procedure for an existing local
agency to develop a groundwater
management plan. This section of the code
provides such an agency with the powers of
a water replenishment district to raise
revenue to pay for facilities to manage the
basin (extraction, recharge, conveyance,
quality). About 150 water agencies have
developed groundwater management plans
in accordance with AB 3030, which then
allows them to qualify for certain state
grants and loans for groundwater
management (posted at:
http://www.groundwater.water.ca.gov).
Public water systems that have performed
evaluations under AB 3030 requirements
may satisfy all or part of the DWSAP (see
8.4.1.3).
- 211 -
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
In developing groundwater management
plans, one important consideration is the
effects of these plans on the conditions in
the waterway. For example, depletion of
the groundwater could cause perennial
streams to become ephemeral. Springs
that historically have fed a river might no
longer do so if groundwater supplies are
over-utilized. Information from your
watershed assessment might lend insight
into the potential impacts of groundwater
management plans on the aquatic
ecosystem.
8.5.1.3 Water Quality Considerations
Watershed assessments can be very useful
in management of water quality by providing
basic information about the various factors
that affect the constituents of water. A
comprehensive watershed assessment
should include information about:







the climate and hydrology of the
watershed that will determine the water
availability during different seasons and
at different places in the watershed and
the consequent capacity for dilution of
introduced materials;
the geochemistry of parent material and
soils that will determine natural
contributions of dissolved constituents;
soil properties, terrain features,
vegetative cover, land use, and climatic
factors that control potential for
sediment production;
hydraulic and geomorphic properties of
channels that influence sediment
transport;
riparian vegetation properties that
influence energy input to streams and
consequent water temperature;
known and suspected sources of
pollution (both point and non-point); past
measurements of water quality
parameters; and
changes in watershed conditions over
time.
- 212 -
June, 2005
These types of information will provide the
general context of water quality and allow
identification of problems that should be
addressed. While some polluters will
voluntarily reduce their sources of
contamination once these problems are
brought to their attention through the
information of the watershed assessment,
some form of regulation is often necessary.
A detailed watershed assessment may
incorporate modeling results from models
such as the EPA’s Better Assessment
Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint
Sources (BASINS) and Stormwater
Management Model (SWMM). Such models
can aid in identifying sources and factors
subject to control and estimate the
effectiveness of various controls and
practices on downstream water quality.
Considerations of water quality issues is an
essential part of any integrated water
management plan. Data and analysis from a
watershed assessment can make significant
contributions to the understanding of water
quality conditions and the stressors in the
watershed that pose a risk to maintaining
high water quality and meeting the
beneficial uses of the waterways.
8.6
Floodplain Management
Another aspect of integrated water
management is floodplain management.
Planners need to consider how the
management of water produced by large
rain events fits into the overall water
management plans. City and County
general plans must evaluate flood hazards
and develop strategies for floodplain
management, as noted in the OPR General
Plan Guidelines:
“Cities and counties should identify risks
from natural hazards which extend
across jurisdictional boundaries, then
use any available data from watershedbased floodplain management…as
planning tools to address any significant
issues. Each local planning agency
carries a responsibility to coordinate its
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
general plan with regional planning
efforts as much as possible. “ (p. 77)
The safety element must also identify flood
hazard areas and establish policies which
will avoid unreasonable flood risks. A
comprehensive approach should include
mapping floodplains, establishing general
policies to keep intensive new development
out of floodplains or to mitigate and protect
against flood impacts if development is to
be located in such areas, minimizing
impacts on existing development where
possible, establishing policies regarding
capital improvements or acquisitions
necessary to ensure flood protection, and
floodplain management policies (which may
include both structural and non-structural
approaches to flood control using a multiobjective watershed approach). Flooding
is often a regional problem that crosses
multiple jurisdictional boundaries. Policies
should be developed cooperatively with
local, state, and federal agencies, including
special districts, to create feasible solutions,
Guidelines for the preparation of an optional
floodplain management element are
provided in Appendix C.
http://www.fpm.water.ca.gov/generalplan.ht
ml. The Department of Water Resources’
Division of Flood Management can provide
floodplain management and flood control
information, including floodplain maps,
where available.
In addition, the state Cobey-Alquist
Floodplain Management Act encourages
local governments to plan, adopt, and
enforce floodplain management regulations
through an ordinance or other means(Water
Code §8400, et seq.). Where a federal flood
control project report has been issued which
designates floodway boundaries, the
Department of Water Resources or the
State Reclamation Board will not
appropriate money in support of the project
unless the applicable agency has enacted
floodplain regulations. Those regulations
must provide that: (1) Construction of
structures in the floodway which may
endanger life or significantly reduce its
- 213 -
June, 2005
carrying capacity shall be prohibited; (2)
Development will be allowed within the
“restrictive zone” between the floodway and
the limits of the floodplain as long as human
life and the carrying capacity of the
floodplain are protected.
As a result of the above, local government
and special districts can be both a
contributor to and user of your watershed
assessment where it addresses flooding
and floodplains.
8.6.1 Floodplain Processes and
Ecology
In our channel-centric view of rivers, the
floodplain is often a neglected component of
the fluvial system. This view has been
prevalent historically in developed areas of
California, where attempts to convey flood
flows within existing channels are common.
There are several problems with this
approach:
1) Prior to development, natural alluvial
channels evolved to accommodate the
dominant discharge, or bank full flow (flows
with a range of recurrence intervals of about
1 to 5 years) while higher magnitude floods
inundated the adjacent floodplain riparian
zone on average every few years. The
current assumption that the channel itself,
without its floodplain, can convey a full
range of flood flows is unrealistic, and has
led to considerable flood hazards.
Moreover, the hazard worsens
incrementally with increases in watershed
development that reduce infiltration and
increase runoff and peak discharges
2) Floodplain development has led to a
situation where there is often no riparian
buffer between the top of the channel bank
and the adjacent development. In this
case, attempts are made to prevent the
natural processes of bank erosion and
channel migration, processes integral to the
storage and transfer of sediment within a
fluvial system, as well as to vegetation
succession. Levees and bank protection
are employed to prevent geomorphic
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
processes acting between channels and
their floodplains, thus creating static river
morphology. Such attempts to arrest
erosion, and in some cases sediment
deposition, has led to extensive
channelization efforts throughout California
3) Relatively short hydrologic records are
used in statistical methods to predict future
flood magnitudes and recurrence intervals.
However, high magnitude floods change the
flood statistics, and lower the recurrence
interval associated with specific magnitude
floods—otherwise stated, the occurrence of
a high magnitude flood may increase the
discharge of the design flood, such as the
100-year event commonly used for
floodplain management.
Floodplain riparian ecosystems are
sustained by the very disturbances that our
past floodplain management efforts often try
to eliminate: flooding and erosion. In
California, as in most of the developed
world, over 90% of riparian ecosystems
have been lost. Agricultural and urban
development often extends all the way to
the top of the channel bank, leaving only a
single line of trees. In creeks where cattle
or other livestock graze, vegetation may be
completely absent. In order to minimize
flood and erosion hazards, and to sustain or
restore floodplain ecosystems, floodplain
management should:



Accommodate physical processes, or
the “natural disturbances” that create
and maintain processes and functions of
floodplain ecosystems (flooding,
channel migration, avulsion, overbank
flow, sediment erosion and deposition);
Expect and accommodate change in the
relation between the river channel and
floodplain boundary (e.g. erosion,
deposition, and migration);
Preserve longitudinal and lateral
connectivity between the channel and
floodplain (e.g. dam releases to
maintain geomorphic processes,
vegetation succession, overbank flow,
and fish use of floodplain areas);
- 214 -


June, 2005
Preserve flood storage function of
floodplain;
Preserve floodplain riparian zone as a
buffer between developed areas and the
fluvial system.
8.6.2 A Watershed Approach to
Floodplain Management
A watershed approach to reduce flood
hazards must consider cumulative effects of
past and proposed floodplain changes. The
most successful approach to minimize flood
hazards it to minimize floodplain
development, and to instead preserve the
natural flood storage capacity of the
floodplain. Flood hazard reduction and
floodplain management is encouraged by
many, including the California Department
of Water Resources (DWR;
http://www.fpm.water.ca.gov) and the
professional, non-profit educational
organization, the Floodplain Management
Association (FMA;
http://www.floodplain.org). Flooding often
crosses multiple jurisdictional boundaries for
ownerships and responsibilities: county,
city, special district (water, flood control,
community services, etc.), state, federal,
and tribal.
A watershed assessment that evaluates
upslope-downstream hydrologic effects and
causes of alterations can provide a very
useful tool for floodplain management.
Downstream communities will likely have
more interest in a watershed assessment
addressing flooding and floodplain issues
than upstream ones, often driven by recent
or continuous experience with damaging
floods. Urbanizing areas tend to discover
that previous “flood control” channels and
reservoirs, as well as road culverts, are not
sized to withstand the flood peaks (“peak
discharge”) estimated when the watershed
was more rural, with less paved and
covered (impervious) surfaces.
Some examples of downstream California
communities (and their watershed) actively
working with partnerships on watershed
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
assessments and plans with floodplain
management and flood protection as a
major focus include:






8.7
City of Newport Beach – San Diego
Creek watershed
City of Santa Cruz – San Lorenzo Creek
watershed
City of Napa – Napa River watershed
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton –
Santa Margarita River watershed
City of San Jose / Santa Clara County –
Guadalupe River watershed
[http://www.scbwmi.org]
City of East Palo Alto – San
Francisquito Creek watershed
Regulation
Regulations influence water quality, land
uses, resources extraction (e.g., timber) and
integrated planning. Federal, state and local
regulations define the environment in which
all of the issues are considered. There are
many state and local regulatory processes
where watershed assessment and
management are either required or are
useful tools to achieve regulatory goals.
8.7.1. Water Quality Regulation
The federal Clean Water Act and the state
Porter-Cologne Act are the two primarily
water quality statutes (Table 8.2). These
acts prescribe that permits be issued to
regulate the release of contaminants into
waterways and that reports are prepared to
evaluate the conditions and status of
waterways, among other requirements.
Before discussing how information from
your watershed assessment might be useful
in this regulatory context, the following
section reviews basic background
information
8.7.1.1. Major categories of water
pollution
Water pollution is grouped into two major
categories – point source and nonpoint
- 215 -
June, 2005
source (NPS). Point source pollution is
defined as anything that is regulated by the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) and generally comes out
of the end of a pipe. This includes most
urban stormwater run-off, which, now in
large part is regulated through NPDES
Storm Water programs.
Although urban runoff is collected from a
large geographical area, it is regulated by
NPDES, and is generally released into a
waterway via a pipe so is considered a point
source. NPS pollution includes all other
sources of pollution, including run off from
agriculture, rural areas, most abandoned
mines, and forested areas. In particular,
data and analysis from a watershed
assessment could provide useful
information in the development of non point
source pollution regulations.
In reality, almost all NPS pollution is really
point source pollution because
contaminants and other disruptors of
watershed function originate from points on
the landscape. Typically, however, the term
point source pollution is applied only to
focused human activities that discharge
contaminants or modify physical or chemical
qualities of a waterway (e.g., an industrial
operation).
As a watershed assessor, you will find that
there is a gray area between permitregulated and unregulated pollution that can
be associated with a type of land-use. For
example, agricultural operations in the
Central Valley have been given a
conditional waiver by the state for the
pollutants originating from agricultural lands
in the Valley. In exchange, the growers
monitor water quality at the sub-basin level
and employ “best management practices” to
reduce pollutant runoff to waterways. A
watershed assessment can still be very
useful in this setting as one aspect of the
conditional waiver is to understand
watershed conditions for a given planning
area.
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
8.7.1.2 Point Source Pollution
Regulation
Point sources may have a wide-range of
potential impacts, from minor to being
drivers of waterway function. Stormwater
permits are given to local municipalities for
point source discharges under the National
Table 8.2
June, 2005
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and are called NPDES permits.
These permits contain a list of criteria that
cities and counties must comply with
regarding stormwater effluent. Large cities
fall under the Phase I permits and are
required to monitor waterways. Monitoring
data collected in the course of preparing a
State statutes that deal with water quality
Name of Law
Clean Water Act (federal,
1972)


Porter-Cologne (state,
1990)



California Toxics Rule


Key provisions
Regulations to meet the goal of zero discharge of
pollutants.
Includes sections on water standards (303) and TMDLs
(303d); assessment of water quality (305b); nonpoint
source management (319); NPDES permits (402), and
wetlands (404).
Established the State Water Resources Control Board
and 9 Regional Boards to control water rights and water
quality in California.
Empowers the regional boards to prepare water quality
control plans (Basin Plans) to ensure that beneficial uses
of water are being met and actions are taken to control
point and nonpoint source pollution.
Authorizes the Boards. to issue NPDES permits under
the federal CWA
In 2000, the US EPA finalized the California Toxics Rule
to reinstate water quality criteria for toxic pollutants in the
state's rivers, streams, lakes, enclosed bays and
estuaries. The EPA promulgated this rule to fill a gap in
California water quality standards that was created in
1994 when a State court overturned the State's water
quality control plans containing water quality criteria for
priority toxic.
The final rule promulgated: 1) freshwater and saltwater
criteria for 22 toxics; 2) ambient aquatic life criteria for 23
priority toxics; 3) ambient human health criteria for 57
priority toxicsThe State of California must use the criteria
together with the State's existing water quality standards
when controlling pollution in inland waters and enclosed
bays and estuaries. The numeric water quality criteria
contained in the final rule are identical to the EPA's
recommended CWA §304(a) criteria for these. However,
the EPA did not include the proposed acute and chronic
criteria for mercury to protect freshwater and saltwater
aquatic life or the proposed acute criteria for selenium to
protect freshwater aquatic life. Also, the final rule does
not contain numeric criteria for chloroform.
- 216 -
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
watershed assessment could be very
valuable for those involved in overseeing
compliance with the permits (e.g., Regional
Water Quality Control Boards). Within the
Public Works or Utilities departments of
each Phase I city, a “Stormwater Quality”
division oversees monitoring of selected
waterways for a variety of conventional and
toxic water quality constituents to comply
with their permit. Data from a watershed
assessment could aid the effort to prioritize
pollutant monitoring. This prioritization
process involves identifying key locations
for monitoring and key constituents that are
most toxic and most prevalent. Data
generated as part of an assessment could
identify stream reaches where particular
pollutants were problematic. Additionally,
the assessment will contain an analysis of
the impacts of contaminants, sediment, and
total water volume on habitat conditions.
These impacts need to be evaluated during
the permitting process and would be useful
to the staff at the Regional Boards.
Watershed assessments should at least
include the location of point sources and
estimated discharge of pollutants, or other
effects on watershed function. These points
sources may have a wide range of potential
impacts, from minor to being drivers of
waterway function. Assessment of
watershed function can also inform future
permitting of point source discharge. If
waterways within a watershed are already
impacted by point or non-point sources of
pollution, the future permitted discharges
would be inadvisable.
There are various ways that you can deal
with point source information:
1) Point source dischargers and the state
regulatory agency must monitor the
pollution originating from the permitted
facility and also the potential impacts of
the pollution. This information is an
important local source of information for
the water quality part of your
assessment.
- 217 -
June, 2005
2) Information about single point sources,
or a combination of point and non-point
sources of pollution can be combined to
give an assessment of existing impacts.
This combined impact should be
assessed for ecosystem and other
impacts and the information presented
and summarized in a way that is useful
for future permits.
3) Types of pollution that are covered by
permits include those listed in chapter
3.6 (e.g., organic compounds, metals,
high temperature). Contaminants may
have their effects in isolation from each
other, but often they have their negative
impacts in concert. This is where
watershed assessment, which is by
definition integrative, can have a
valuable role in decision-making. For
example, future land-use decisions
could impact the volume and
composition of municipal waste
discharge, the timing and volume of
managed storm-water runoff, and
suppress natural processes. When
existing conditions and impacts are
compounded with future possible
scenarios, then the combined impacts
can be assessed.
4) Ultimately, the regulatory agency, the
State Water Resources Control Board,
must accept the finding of a negative
impact to deny a pollution discharge
permit, or accept a finding of no net
impact to allow a permit. There is not
always a clear role for watershed groups
in this process, though local agencies
may be able to bring forward watershed
assessment information to the decisionmaking process.
8.7.1.3 Non-Point Source Pollution
Regulation
The problem of non-point source pollution
has contributed to the widespread
application of watershed assessment and
management. Widely distributed and
occasional appearance of water pollution
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
across a watershed is a product of the
combination of the natural environment and
human actions. It is possible in some cases
to attribute responsibility for NPS pollution
to individual actions, land uses, or parcels.
Non-point source pollution enters
waterways at non-specific places as a
consequence of the movement of water
across the landscape. When the beneficial
uses of the waterbodies are impaired as a
consequence of this pollution, total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) can be
established to reduce the contaminant(s).
TMDLs have been established in waterways
for pesticides, nutrients, sediment, and
other types of contaminants.
The TMDL process is a framework of
assessing a watershed, but with a water
quality emphasis. Each TMDL has five
general objectives, quite similar to the
watershed assessment process described
in this Manual:
1. To assess the condition of a waterbody,
and determine/confirm cause(s) /
source(s) of pollutant;
2. To quantify the sources of the pollutant;
3. To determine how much of a particular
pollutant a waterbody can handle and
still meet desired conditions;
4. To identify whether and how much the
different sources need to be reduced in
order to support desired conditions;
5. To develop a plan which, when
implemented, will restore waterbody
health.
TMDLs are determined by state agencies
for pollutants impacting specific waterways.
For example, in the Newport Bay watershed
(Southern California), San Diego Creek has
June, 2005
a TMDL established by the US-EPA for
organic and inorganic pollutants originating
from residential, commercial, industrial, and
agricultural lands. The Garcia River has a
TMDL for sediment (posted at:
http://www.krisweb.com/biblio/garcia_usepa
_regix_1998_finaltmdl.pdf).
TMDLs can consider and allocate loads
(amounts) for contaminants originating from
both non-point and point sources. Natural
loads are calculated and are often
considered the background for a particular
substance (e.g., sediment or nutrients).
TMDL reports describe the data analysis
and modeling used to determine likely or
actual sources of pollutants and eventually
“waste load allocations”, or the amount of
pollution each polluter or area may
contribute to the waterway.
There are no fixed protocols for the
determination and allocations of pollutant
loads under individual TMDLs. Like
watershed assessments, they are tailored to
the watershed and the sources of pollution.
The San Diego Creek TMDL used the
proportion of sub-watersheds in different
land use categories and measurements or
estimates of loads originating from land-use
types to determine loads for each pollutant
in each sub-watershed.
Watershed assessment approaches are
more general than TMDL calculations and
might provide more detail about natural
processes and human activities in the same
sub-watersheds. This additional detail would
help the TMDL process and potentially
inform the implementation of the waste load
allocation and reduction.
1) TMDLs being carried out in watersheds
A TMDL identifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that may be discharged to a water body without
causing exceedences of water quality standards and impairment of the uses made of these waters.
The federal Clean Water Act requires development of TMDLs for polluted waters to assist in identifying
pollutant control needs and opportunities.
(Total Maximum Daily Loads For Toxic Pollutants San Diego Creek and Newport Bay, California; USEPA, Region 9, 2002)
http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/tmdl/nbay/summary0602.pdf
- 218 -
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
with assessments or similar analyses
should explicitly take into account the
watershed characteristics and
processes described in the assessment.
2) Watershed assessments should
describe historic, present, and likely
future conditions, which is all useful
information for determining a TMDL.
3) Watershed management plans based
on watershed assessments in TMDL
watersheds should take into account the
source calculations and waste load
allocations in the TMDL when describing
management recommendations.
8.7.2
Timber Harvest Plans
Developing and implementation of timber
harvest plans (THPs) are required by the
Board of Forestry under the California
Forest Practices Act. It is the intention of the
state that these THPs not result in non-point
source pollution to the state’s waterways.
Watershed assessment can provide several
types of information for THP development:
1) The physical and biological setting for
THP activities should be described at
several watershed scales. For example,
the impacts of logging and grading
under a THP will be most apparent at
the smallest sub-watershed scale. It is
most valuable to collect data at this fine
scale on many watershed processes in
order to provide an appropriate
description of the natural environment.
However, some impacts of the project
may work their way downstream into the
stream and river system meaning that
processes should be measured there as
well.
2) Different geographic scales will be
appropriate for different potential
impacts (Ziemer, 2000). For example,
road crossings may change stream
channel properties for only a few
hundred meters up and down stream of
the crossing. In contrast, skid trails and
- 219 -
June, 2005
road cuts may contribute excess
sediment, nutrients, and surface water
to downstream channels for many miles.
3) Cumulative effects of past, proposed,
and future activities are also best
measured at several scales, from the
sub-watershed to watershed. Smaller
watersheds may respond more quickly
and to fewer actions than larger
watersheds as well as in different ways.
4) Effects of the proposed actions and
cumulative effects should be analyzed
over appropriate time scales for the
processes in question. For example, if
the logging will impact shade on upland
slopes, what will the change in
subsurface water temperature be and
how will that change affect the
immediate stream reach? At another
scale: how will the combined actions
change natural disturbance processes
and population dynamics on the
landscape and in the waterways of the
larger watershed over decades?
8.7.3 Federal and State Endangered
Species Acts
Both the Federal and California Endangered
Species Acts (FESA and CESA,
respectively) require that federal and/or
state agencies consider and regulate the
impacts of land and water use actions on
imperiled plant and wildlife species and their
habitats. For certain species, e.g., salmon,
these impacts are often considered at the
watershed scale in order to include
landscape impacts on waterways. Many
watershed assessments have been done
because of the presence in the watershed
of endangered or threatened species.
Watershed assessments can be used to
inform decisions for managing impacts to
endangered species in the following ways:
1) Identify potential and actual impacts to
endangered species that may originate
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
from single or multiple sources that are
best measured at the watershed scale.
Identify the spatial and temporal scales
at which potential and actual impacts
should be measured within the
watershed.
Use the conceptual model approach
from the assessment planning stage
(see chapters 2 and 6) to identify human
and other actions and processes that
influence the well-being of endangered
species.
Give relative weights to the human and
natural influences on endangered
species habitats and populations. Use
these relative weights to prioritize the
influences for remedial action.
Describe protection or restoration
strategies that could be implemented at
the watershed scale for the benefit of
endangered species or their habitats.
Identify data and knowledge gaps
specific to the species and their habitats
that are needed prior to making
decisions that are based on knowledge
of ecosystem and population dynamics.
8.8
Voluntary Private Lands
Management
In general, most landowners have intimate
knowledge of their property, so it is unlikely
that a watershed assessment will tell them
much that they don’t already know about
general condition. Scientific aspects of the
assessment may be more revealing to
them. Perhaps the principal benefit of a
watershed assessment to a private
landowner is setting the context of their
property within the entire watershed. For
some people, this perspective will be of
interest and benefit and may lead to
alterations in management practices. For
others, a watershed perspective and
associated information will not affect their
established way of doing business. A
watershed assessment may contain
substantial resources such as aerial
photographs, satellite imagery, and GIS
layers of their land and adjoining properties
that an individual may not have ready
- 220 -
June, 2005
access to. These types of information may
be of value to some owners in their planning
and decision-making.
Some landowners have partnered with
neighbors to restore a waterway. One
example is Murphy’s Creek in San Joaquin
County, where landowners obtained a
CALFED grant to remove a non-functioning
earthen dam, which had prevented
migration of anadramous fish. Landowners
such as this group could benefit from the
data and analysis contained in a watershed
assessment.
Regional information on geology, climate,
soil productivity, erosion risk, land
capability, and vegetation may be useful for
operations of some farmers and ranchers or
for planning construction and other
development. These general types of
information would be necessary for
environmental analysis of development
proposals. Watershed information could
also be useful in complying with regulations
and as background in applications for grants
from state and federal agencies for soil
conservation and habitat restoration
projects.
Watershed assessments should be helpful
to owners of forest-land in scheduling of
logging, road construction, and road
maintenance to minimize impacts on
streams. Information from watershed
assessments should also assist in
complying with California’s Forest Practice
Rules and preparing Timber Harvest Plans,
Sustained Yield Plans, or Non-industrial
Timber Management Plans. Watershed
assessments probably have the greatest
direct applicability to evaluating cumulative
watershed effects as required for Timber
Harvest Plans. If the Board of Forestry
adopts the recommendations of the
University of California Committee on
Cumulative Watershed Effects (Dunne, et
al. 2001), then watershed assessments
could become an integral part of planning
for forest operations.
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
8.9
Monitoring Programs
June, 2005
assessment. Here are some things to keep
in mind:
Monitoring is an important part of adaptive
management and the implementation of
watershed plans, restoration programs,
regulation, and land and water use
decisions. Monitoring is closely tied to
watershed assessment. The results of
monitoring should be useful to assessment
and assessment in turn should be used to
design and implement monitoring programs.
Two important ways that watershed
assessment can inform monitoring program
design and implementation are: 1) by
exposing gaps in knowledge and data about
watershed conditions and 2) by showing
geographically areas that are at risk or have
actual impacts from human activities.
Knowledge and Data Gaps
Part of your watershed assessment should
involve identifying gaps in information about
systems in your watershed and deficiencies
in knowledge about how the systems work
(see chapter 2.4.2). These gaps should be
separated into these two major categories,
data and knowledge, and a monitoring and
research program recommended to address
deficiencies. Obviously implementation of
the program will depend on factors beyond
the control of the assessment project. In
addition, not all data and knowledge gaps
can be readily filled, even by the most
advanced watershed groups. However, it
will help your own, or someone else’s,
future understanding of the watershed if you
go through this exercise.
Data gaps
Monitoring is conducted to find out how a
system works or is changing over time. The
term is typically applied to water quality
monitoring programs, but you could just as
easily use it to refer to wildlife or ground
water monitoring. There are a wide variety
of things you could conceivably monitor in
response to findings in your watershed
- 221 -
1) The spatial scale and resolution of your
monitoring program (e.g., location and
distribution of monitoring sites) should be
determined by the nature of your
monitoring/assessment question or the
information gap. For example, if there are
particular land-uses of concern distributed
throughout your watershed (e.g., roads),
then you should monitor enough of them
closely to statistically determine whether or
not an impact is occurring, as well as the
extent of the impact throughout subwatersheds.
2) The temporal scale and resolution of your
program is as important as the spatial
resolution. If your data gaps are related to
storm event impacts (e.g., large movements
of sediment or contaminants), then
monitoring should occur intensively during
and after storms and for several storms.
Between storms, you would want to
determine non-storm related impacts in
order to provide a “baseline” against which
to compare storm impacts. Frequency of
sampling is a critical issue here as it both
determines whether or not you can tell
something about individual events, changes
during a water-year, and/or trends over
decades.
Knowledge gaps
Data gaps are different from knowledge
gaps. Knowledge gaps refer to things you
don’t know about a system or thing you are
interested in. To address gaps in your
knowledge about how your watershed is
working, changing over time, or responding
to stress from human activities, you may
need to implement monitoring that is
basically research. An example of a
knowledge gap is the contribution of
nutrients to waterways from different land
use and cover types. Addressing this
knowledge gap would demand collecting
data about nutrients upstream, adjacent to,
downstream, and in sub-surface water for
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
each land use or cover type of interest. The
data would need to be collected over a
reasonable time and space resolution and
for long enough to establish any trends.
Along the way you might fill data gaps (e.g.,
nutrient concentration in a certain
waterway), but the knowledge gap filling
occurs when you find statistically-significant
relationships between land-uses and
nutrient conditions under a range of climate
and other conditions. This obviously
requires specialized analytical skills that you
may or may not find in your current
assessment team or watershed group.
Here are some things to keep in mind when
designing programs to address knowledge
gaps:
1) Differentiate between data gaps and
knowledge gaps. Data gaps require the
collection of information about a system
about which you already have some
knowledge. Knowledge gaps occur where
you may or may not have data, you just
aren’t sure how processes and things are
interacting with each other, or occurring
over space and time.
2) Approach knowledge gaps in the same
way you went after conceptual modeling
(chapter 2). Think of how a system might
Figure 8.1
work based on your knowledge of how
similar systems work. Draw or describe a
conceptual model of the system including
where the gaps occur. Pencil in possible
ways that things might work and use this
exercise to come up with targeted questions
for future monitoring or research.
8.10
Watershed Adaptive Management
Watershed adaptive management is a
continuous procedure, broken up
occasionally by planning and watershed
assessment. Monitoring and evaluation of
the effects of intentional and inadvertent
changes to your watershed is a critical part
of watershed adaptive management.
Watershed adaptive management is defined
here as “monitoring or assessing the
progress toward meeting management
objectives and incorporating what is learned
into future conceptual models, management
plans and actions, and monitoring (figure
8.1). “Learning while doing,” acknowledges
that many management actions (e.g.
restoration) are experiments. Assessment
plays a key role in both the planning of
management activities and the evaluation of
past activities. It relies on monitoring
information collected before, during and
after actions and during the
coming and going of seasons and
years. This section builds upon
early chapters and emphasizes
watershed assessment as part of
the continuous process of
watershed adaptive management,
with periodic stops to measure and
evaluate ecosystem responses.
Watershed adaptive management
- 222 -
June, 2005
The monitoring data collected,
analyzed, and interpreted as part
of the watershed assessment will
provide information that may alter
the watershed’s original
conceptual model, the
management activities, and the
monitoring program itself. One
important question is how to make
the connection between the
“evaluation of ecosystem condition
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
and actions” stage and the “conceptual
model” and “management decision” stages.
If the original questions and issues driving
the monitoring and evaluation/assessment
were derived from the conceptual model
and are related to the management
decisions, then this loop should close easily.
Probably the best way to close the loop on
watershed adaptive management is to make
clear at the outset the policies, processes,
and actions that are being monitored and
evaluated. Also, the people and
organizations that are involved in the
management and other decisions should be
aware at the outset of the monitoring and
evaluation. Although they should probably
not evaluate their own actions, they can
provide valuable input into the actions they
take and processes they affect.
Clear identification at the beginning of the
monitoring program of the policies and
management actions that will be informed
will theoretically facilitate the entry of new
information into subsequent decisionmaking. The actual use of well-collected
monitoring data and scientifically-rigorous
evaluations will depend on social and
political forces outside the scope of this
Manual.
8.10.1 Continuing Assessment
Even as you finish one watershed
assessment, you should be looking forward
to updating it as you gain new information
and knowledge. Periodically assessing
watershed conditions is an essential
component of adaptive management at the
watershed scale because of the continual
changes occurring in watersheds. The
threads connecting one assessment to the
next are a combination of the kinds of
problems you identified in the first
assessment and the watershed processes
and conditions you decide to monitor.
There are two primary ways to structure
monitoring programs that lead to
assessments: 1) ambient monitoring, which
involves measuring physical, chemical, and
- 223 -
June, 2005
biological characteristics of the watershed to
assess the status and trends of these
conditions and processes. No assumptions
are made regarding cause-and-effect
relationships and 2) stress-based or
strategic monitoring, which focuses on
connections between the current conditions
and known or suspected sources of stress.
This second type of monitoring will allow
you to more readily draw conclusions about
what actions affect certain natural
processes in the watershed, but may be
less informative about the natural
functioning of the system. A combination of
these approaches will allow the greatest
flexibility in monitoring ambient natural
conditions and fluxes, while also facilitating
conclusions about correlations among
watershed compartments and potentially
leading to the discovery of new connections
among compartments.
Designing monitoring that leads to an
assessment based on goals, questions, or
issues in the watershed necessarily means
simplifying the systems so a conceptual
model can be constructed (see CWAM
chapter 2). This conceptual model will
reflect what is known about influences and
connections among parts of the system. It
should also show which influences are
natural and which are of human origin and
thus most open to change through adaptive
management. It should also show which
aspects of the systems are appropriate for
monitoring (indicators) and how knowing
about them will improve knowledge and
decision-making. Finally, it should show
which influences are natural and which are
of human origin and thus most open to
change through adaptive management.
The conceptual models for the watershed
monitoring program and periodic
assessment should be nearly identical.
Monitoring may lead to interim changes in
the conceptual model as new knowledge is
gained about the system. The conceptual
model will also remind people and
organizations within and outside the
monitoring program why particular
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
parameters or indicators were selected and
invested in. Finally, the conceptual model
will serve as a common frame of reference
as monitoring and re-assessments are done
over time.
Once you have connected the watershed
conceptual model and proposed monitoring
actions, you should consider describing the
context for the monitoring. In some cases,
you will only be monitoring features (e.g.,
wildlife populations) and fluxes (e.g.,
precipitation and discharge of surface
water) in the watershed regardless of their
context of human actions. Usually, you will
be trying to understand the system from an
adaptive management viewpoint and thus
will need to include monitoring of human
actions and system responses to these
actions.
Restoration Effectiveness
Hopefully your watershed management
activities will result in restoration or
rehabilitation of watershed conditions and
processes. This could consist of efforts to
change land-use practices and zoning in
order to reduce impacts, implementing “best
management practices, removing harmful
infrastructure, or removing exotics and revegetating with native species in riparian
and upland areas. The role of watershed
assessment in restoration planning is
described in chapter 8.2 The effectiveness
of these restoration activities can be
measured by monitoring and evaluating
watershed processes and human activities.
One way of measuring performance or
effectiveness is to choose indicators of
condition or change in condition in the
system. Indicators are measures that
reflect key changes in the status and trends
of important watershed processes and
conditions. Examples of indicators are:
change in the number of native fish species
in a reach, upland and riparian forest cover
in a sub-watershed, bank armoring or rate
of bank erosion, number of miles of roads in
a sub-watershed, proportion of subwatershed protected by a conservation
- 224 -
June, 2005
Adaptive Management in the
City of Los Angeles
In the face of mounting pressure to clean
up storm water runoff, river channels, and
beaches, the City of Los Angeles passed a
$500 million bond measure in 2004 to
address these problems. Key to this
measure is the requirement to use an
adaptive management approach to
monitoring project effectiveness and
modifying the program in response to new
information.
Clean Water, Ocean, Rivers, Beaches,
Bay Through Storm Water Projects
General Obligation Bond Program
Excerpt: All projects shall provide water
quality benefits and have as their primary
purpose the reduction of pollutant loads to
the impaired waters of Los Angeles to
meet water quality standards. Wherever
feasible projects shall be designed (1) to
provide multiple benefits and purposes
including water supply, flood management,
open space, habitat, and recreation
benefits, (2) with consideration of source
control measures and leveraging of funds
and collaboration with other agencies, and
(3) shall utilize a strategic adaptive
management approach that
incorporates assessment, feedback,
adaptation, and flexibility. In order to
protect public health, improve water
quality, conserve water and reduce
flooding, the types of projects include
storm water cleanup, control and diversion;
water quality, pollution and bacteria
control; trash capture; urban lakes and bay
improvements; habitat/wetlands restoration
and development; storm water retention.
http://www.lacitysan.org/irp/documents/Pro
pOFactSheet3.pdf
easement. The idea is that you would
measure change in the indicators over time
and space in a place where restoration is
taking place and compare the change to the
condition prior to restoration or to a
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
reference condition. The reference condition
could be a positive reference (e.g., historic
or desired condition) or a negative reference
(e.g., violable water quality standard or no
reproducing fish). Environmental indicators
are discussed in more detail in CWAM
Volume II.
Some indicators change slowly and so are
measured very seldom (e.g., forest cover),
others change rapidly over hours or days,
but it is the trend over time that you are
really interested in (e.g., water temperature
or sediment load). To measure
effectiveness of restoration actions requires
that you have 1) control conditions (e.g.,
reference un-treated sites and/or natural
condition sites or in some cases knowledge
of historical conditions), 2) dedicated
monitoring and evaluation over appropriate
time frames (years to decades), 3) a solid
theoretical understanding of experimental
design, sampling, and statistics, and 4) a
desired condition toward which you would
like your watershed to head.
The California Department of Fish and
Game has developed a manual for
assessing salmon habitat restoration
effectiveness (Harris et al., 2005;
http://nature.berkeley.edu/forestry/comp_pr
oj/dfg.html). This manual includes detailed
monitoring protocols for evaluating
restoration of stable banks, culvert fish
passage, instream habitat, instream
substrate, riparian and upland vegetation,
and upgraded roads. It has been field-tested
by the authors and has guidance relevant
beyond just restoration for salmonids.
Land and Water Management Effects
Some management actions will be
“restoration”, while others will be the usual
land and water uses which may damage
the watersheds. The role of watershed
assessment in land use and management is
described in sections 8.3 to 8.8 above. Most
watersheds have multiple human demands
placed upon them and it is reasonable to
periodically assess them in order to
- 225 -
June, 2005
understand their condition and how
conditions can change in response to
particular actions. This can be done in much
the same way as you measure restoration
effectiveness, except that restoration is
more like an experiment in that you can
control change in the system. Because you
can’t easily control the water and land
management actions, measuring and
assessing change in watershed condition
will consist of comparing your indicators
with a reference condition or recognized
standards (e.g., water quality standards).
Your ability to conclude that certain actions
lead to certain effects will be based on
correlation between action and effect, which
is different from direct “cause and effect”
relationships.
Continuing assessment in this case is a
combination of measuring restoration
effectiveness and “ambient monitoring”.
There are a few guidelines to keep in mind
when designing an assessment program
that is intended to evaluate management
effects:
 Be very clear about what you want
to assess; what are the questions?
 Initiate monitoring as long as
possible before the management
action occurs to strengthen the
evaluation of effects.
 Make sure the indicators that you
will monitor and evaluate are very
closely linked to the likely effects of
the management actions so that
your “linkage analysis” consists of
only one or two steps.
 Try to have a broad range of
conditions that you are evaluating.
This will make your statistical
analysis and conclusions much more
robust.
 Be sure that the spatial extent and
time frames of your data collection
and assessment match the scale of
activity you are evaluating.
 Consider monitoring the
management actions themselves as
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight

well as environmental or ecological
indicators.
Consider inviting the organizations
or individuals responsible for the
management actions into the
monitoring process so that they can
trust the data and adapt their
decision-making.
8.10.2 Collecting Monitoring Data
Just as watershed assessment informs
monitoring programs (section 8.9), new
monitoring will be used in future watershed
assessments. Although there are no
standard return intervals for watershed
assessment, there are certainly guidelines
to use to decide when the information on
which you have relied has expired.
Continuing assessment requires the
collection of new data for parameters
identified as important for measuring natural
change and the effects of restorative and
non-restorative management (e.g., urban
development). There are many potential
types of data that you could collect. The
sections below describe some examples of
commonly-collected information in the
context of assessment as part of an
adaptive management cycle. More detailed
descriptions of data collection are given in
chapter 4 and CWAM Volume II.
Geographic information
An up-to-date geographic information
system (GIS) is an invaluable tool for
identifying places needing regular or
periodic monitoring and for keeping track of
certain types of monitoring data. How well
your GIS reflects current conditions in the
watershed depends on how regularly you
update your spatial data. Expiration
depends on the scale of your study area.
For small watersheds (10,000 acres),
disturbances can result in dramatic changes
over short time periods, thus your data
collection intervals should be shorter (1-5
years). For the large watershed-scale
(>100,000 acres), change will be gradual
when averaged over the whole area, thus
- 226 -
June, 2005
data collection intervals for the whole
watershed could be longer (5-10 years).
Hydrology
Without gaging stations, basic waterway
hydrology cannot be directly measured.
Without basic waterway hydrology, aquatic
habitat conditions, pollutant loads, water
supplies, and other properties and functions
of watersheds cannot be determined.
Measuring flows is one of the most critical
things that can be done in a continuing
monitoring program. However, flow
monitoring requires a long-term commitment
because short-term data do not reflect the
natural variability of California’s climate.
Geomorphology
Landforms change in response to human
activity and natural processes. At the scale
of channel banks, hillslopes, and streambeds, the change may be rapid enough to
measure among years and between
assessments. There may be specific
indicators of landform change that you can
measure as part of a monitoring program to
address questions that were raised in your
assessment. These could be things that
change rapidly and will be discussed in your
next assessment, or indicators of long-term
change appropriate for someone to analyze
decades later. The choice of specific
indicators will depend on the questions you
have about the watershed.
Water Quality
Water quality is literally always changing.
Temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen can
fluctuate over hours, suspended sediment
and toxic contaminants over hours to days,
and seasonal conditions or annual loads
over decades. Ideally, you will have a
database of water quality data for your
watershed that shows daily, seasonal, and
annual fluctuations in various parameters.
Continuing assessment in the case of water
quality could consist of the periodic
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
collection of data from other organizations
conducting monitoring.
Biological Information
Most collection of “biological data” will take
place through specialists and specialized
agencies. You may be in the position to
collect some yourself (e.g., benthic
macroinvertebrate sampling). Either way,
the questions you have about the watershed
and potential impacts to the watershed
should drive your decisions about collecting
and analyzing these data.
Aquatic organisms are a common target for
monitoring and assessment because they
are thought to integrate the effects of
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem
management. This is partly true. It is also
true that communities of aquatic organisms
go through their own cycles and have
responses to natural fluctuations in the
environment independent of anything
humans are doing at the watershed scale.
Social Conditions
There are aspects of human communities in
your watershed that may change within
years and decades and are important to
watershed management. There may be
changing economic conditions associated
with evolving local and regional economies.
There may be changing demographics that
will impact how you communicate with
watershed communities. Changes in
economics and demographics will be
difficult to monitor over annual timescales,
but there are indicators of social well-being
and social valuation that can be monitored
over shorter timeframes.
8.10.3 Cost-Effective Assessment
One consideration for the design of
monitoring and assessment programs is the
cost of continued implementation. The
expense often leads to inadequate sampling
intensity. There are several types of
considerations for cost that may help you to
- 227 -
June, 2005
determine how much you need and how to
keep costs down:
1) Spatial extent – how far do your concerns
extend through the watershed? Are there
certain places you could focus on more than
others?
2) Sampling intensity – how often do you
need to sample? How many samples do
you need to take for each parameter?
3) Indicators/parameters needed – how
many and which indicators will tell you the
most about the processes in the watershed
you are concerned about? Are there
cheaper, adequate alternatives to the best
indicators?
4) Frequency and intensity of assessment –
do you need to assess everything at a
regular interval? Can some components be
monitored only after channel changes
during a flood? Are there certain
components and actions/processes in the
watershed that should be assessed less
often than others? Are there other things
that should be assessed very frequently
(e.g., annually)?
5) Monitoring management – are there ways
to encourage people influencing the
watershed to do part of the monitoring and
provide you with the data?
8.11
References
Association of Bay Area Governments.
1995. Improving our Bay-Delta Estuary
Through Local Plans and Programs: A
Guidebook for City and County
Governments. Oakland, CA. 21 pp.
http://www.abag.org
Born, S.M. and K.D. Genskow. 2001.
Toward understanding new watershed
initiatives. A report from the Madison
Watershed Workshop (July 20-21, 2000).
Univ. of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension
Service and Trout Unlimited. Madison, WI.
23 p. (www.tu.org).
California Coastal Conservancy. Watershed
Planning Guide. Prepared by Kate
Goodnight. 17 p.
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
June, 2005
(http://www.coastalconservancy.ca.gov/Publ
ications/ws_planning_guide.pdf)
economic, and social assessment. Portland:
USDA-Forest Service.
California Dept. of Fish and Game (CDFG).
1998. California Salmonid Stream Habitat
Restoration Manual. 3rd edition.
Sacramento.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/manual.html
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
1994. Draft environmental impact statement
and report, proposed Clavey River project,
Tuolumne County, California. FERC/EIS0074D. Washington, DC: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.
California Department of Health Services
(CDHS). 1999. Drinking Water Source
Assessment and Protection Program.
Division of Drinking Water and
Environmental Management. Sacramento.
Freeman, J.R., 1912. On the proposed use
of a portion of the Hetch Hetchy, Eleanor
and Cherry Valleys. San Francisco: Board
of Supervisors.
California Office of Planning and Research
(OPR). General Plan Guidelines.
Sacramento.
Fulton, W. 1999. Guide to California
planning. 2nd ed. Solano Press Books. 373
pp.
California Resources Agency (CRA) and
State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB). 2002. Addressing the Need to
Protect California’s Watersheds: Working
with Local Partnerships. Report to the
Legislature. Sacramento. 80 p.
Grant, G.E. 1994. Watershed analysis – a
retrospective. Watershed Management
Council Newsletter 6(2):1, 16-17.
Conservation Technology Information
Center (CTIC). 1994. Putting together a
watershed management plan: a guide for
watershed partnerships. 16 p. Know Your
Watershed (KYW) Program.
http://ctic.purdue.edu/KYW/KYW.html
Dunne, T., J. Agee, S. Beissinger, W.
Dietrich, D. Gray, M. Power, V. Resh, and
K. Rodrigues. 2001. A scientific basis for the
prediction of cumulative watershed effects.
Report 46. Berkeley: University of
California, Wildland Resources Center.
Environment Now and Southern California
Wetlands Recovery Project. 2002.
Watershed management plan
characterization report for coastal southern
California. Prepared for State Water
Resources Control Board. Los Angeles, CA.
28 p.
FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management
Assessment Team). 1993. Forest
Ecosystem management: An ecological,
Grigg, N.S. 1999. Integrated water
resources management: who should lead,
who should pay? J. Amer. Water Res.
Assoc. 35(3): 527-534.
Harris, R.R., C.M. Olson, S.D. Kocher, J.M.
Gerstein, W. Stockard and W.E. Weaver
(2005). Procedures for Monitoring the
Implementation and Effectiveness of
Fisheries Habitat Restoration Projects.
Center for Forestry, University of California,
Berkeley. 24 pp. and attachments
Huntington, C.W. and S. Sommarstrom.
2000. An evaluation of selected watershed
councils in the Pacific Northwest and
Northern California. Prepared for Trout
Unlimited and Pacific Rivers Council.
Portland, OR. (www.pacrivers.org)
Hyde, C.G., G.H. Wilhelm, and F.C. Miller.
1916. A report upon possible sources of
water supply for the city of Sacramento,
California. Sacramento: City Commission.
Manley, P. N., G. E. Brogan, C. Cook, M. E.
Flores, D. G. Fuller, S. Husari, T. M.
Jimerson, L. M. Lux, M. E. McCain, J. A.
- 228 -
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
Rose, G. Schmitt, J. C. Schuyler, and M. J.
Skinner. 1995. Sustaining ecosystems: a
conceptual framework. Publication R5-EM01. Vallejo, CA: USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Region.
McCammon, B., J. Rector, and K. Gebhardt.
1998. A framework for analyzing the
hydrologic condition of watersheds. Denver:
Bureau of Land Management and USDAForest Service.
McGurk, B.J. and B. Paulson. 2001.
Mokelumne River hydroelectric project
relicensing: Collaborative process integrates
multiple resource concerns. Proceedings of
the Eighth Biennial Watershed Management
Council Conference, R.N. Coats and M.P.
Carlson, eds. pp.13-22. Water Resources
Center Report 101. Riverside: University of
California.
June, 2005
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.,
552 p.
National Research Council (NRC). 1999.
New strategies for America’s watersheds.
National Academy of Sciences. Wash. D.C.
pp. 232-267.
Reid, L.M., R.R. Ziemer, and M.J. Furniss.
1994. Watershed analysis in the federal
arena. Watershed Management Council
Newsletter 6(2):6-11.
Reimold, R.J. (ed) 1998. Watershed
management: practice, policies, and
coordination. McGraw-Hill, NY. 391 p.
Riley, Ann L. 1998. Restoring Streams in
Cities: A Guide for Planners, Policymakers,
and Citizens. Island Press, Covelo CA. 423
p.
Mitchell, B. (editor). 19990. Integrated
Water Management: International
Experiences and Perspectives. Belhaven
Press, London, United Kingdom.
Saul, S. and T. Faast. 1993. Natural
Resource Planning Survival Guide. U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service and Oregon Dept. of
Natural Resources. Portland, OR. 24 p.
Naiman R.J. and 8 others (1992).
Fundamental elements of ecologically
healthy watersheds in the Pacific Northwest
coastal ecoregion. In: “Watershed
management: balancing sustainability and
environmental change. Ed. R.J. Naiman
National Association of Counties (NACo).
http://www.naco.org/pubs.catalog/index.cfm
 “Leadership in Watershed Management:
The County Role” (1999). 86 p.
 “Restoring Community Wetlands and
Watersheds” (1999)
 “Protecting Wetlands, Managing
Watersheds…Local Government Case
Studies” (1999)
 “Watershed Management and
Sustainable Development in Coastal
Counties” (1996)
Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management
Initiative. 2003. Watershed Action Plan.
http://www.scbwmi.org/
National Research Council. 1992.
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems:
Science, Technology, and Public Policy.
- 229 -
State Water Resources Control Board.
2001. Watershed Management Initiative
Overview. 4 p.
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/watershed/index.ht
ml
USDA-Forest Service. 1994. Record of
decision: Amendments to Forest Service
and Bureau of Land Management planning
documents within the range of the northern
spotted owl. Washington, DC: USDA-Forest
Service.
USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Ecosystem
analysis at the watershed scale – The
federal guide for watershed analysis.
http://www.or.blm.gov/ForestPlan/Watershe
d/
California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight
USDA-Forest Service. 1999. Roads
analysis: informing decisions about
managing the national forest transportation
system. Misc. Rep. FS-643. USD
Agriculture Forest Service, Washington DC,
222 pp.
USDA 2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of
scientific information. Page 120 in H.
Gucinski, M. J. Furniss, R. R. Ziemer, and
M. H. Brookes. Eds, General Technical
Report PNW- GTR-509. USD Agriculture
Forest Service, Washington, DC.
USDA-Forest Service. 2000. Lake Tahoe
Basin watershed assessment. General
Technical Report, GTR-PSW-175 and 176.
Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research
Station.
Washington Department of Ecology (DOE).
1998. Guide to Watershed Planning and
Management. Olympia WA.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/99106.html
Amendments
(http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0206005.html)
Williams, J.E., Wood, C.A., and M.P.
Dombeck, editors. 1997. Watershed
Restoration: Principles and Practices.
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
Maryland. 561 p.
World Meteorological
Organization/UNESCO. 1991. Water
resources assessment: Progress in the
Implementation of the Mar del Plata Action
Plan and a Strategy for the 1990s. 64 p.
Geneva: World Meteorological
Organization.
Ziemer, Robert R. 2004. Scale
considerations for linking hillslopes to
aquatic habitats. Pages 22-32, in: Hermann
Gucinski et al. (eds.) Proceedings: Views
from the ridge: Considerations for planning
at the landscape scale. General Technical
Report PNW-GTR-596. Portland, OR: U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 133 p.
Using the Assessment in DecisionMaking Checklist






Watershed planning
Restoration Projects
Integrated Water Management Projects
o Water Supply Projects
o Drinking Water Protection Efforts
o Groundwater Management Planning
o Water Quality Protection
o Floodplain Management
Regulations relating to:
o Water quality
o Timber harvesting
o Federal and state endangered
species
o Local land-use planning
Voluntary Private Lands Management
Monitoring and Adaptive Management
- 230 -
June, 2005